Homeopaths utilize practical guidelines to determine when a real healing is taking place and when the disease process is getting worse. These guidelines are called “Hering’s law of cure,” named after the father of American homeopathy, Constantine Hering, MD (1800-1880), who first made these important observations about the healing process.

To understand these guidelines, it is first useful to know that homeopaths carefully evaluate the evolution of a person`s physical, emotional, and mental/spiritual symptoms. Homeopaths consider mental/spiritual symptoms to be deepest to the core of a person`s being for they represent the will, the ego, the sense of security that the person feels, and the person`s overall state of consciousness. Homeopaths today wonder if the immune system’s important ability to identify “self” from “non-self” is dynamically connected to a person’s mental/spiritual state of health.

The emotional symptoms are external to the mental/spiritual level of the person because imbalances in the deeper level will create increased propensities to various fears, angers, depressive states, and other emotions. The physical symptoms are the most outer manifestation of the person, though every level can and will influence the other.

Also, each level has certain symptoms that have more or less influence on a person`s overall health. For instance, a person`s asthma will be deeper than his or her skin rash; a person`s fear of death will be deeper than his or her irritability; and a person`s loss of self esteem will be deeper than a subtle reduction in memory. Likewise, when comparing symptoms on different levels, a person`s heart disease will more profoundly affect his/her health than a difficulty in concentration experienced on the mental/spiritual level.

In light of these levels of the human being and the degrees of intensity to which a symptom impairs a person`s ability to live, Hering found that healing progresses:

** From within to without (from the deepest part of our being to the most external);
** From the most recent disease back in time to previous ones;
** From the top of the body to the bottom of the body.

Ultimately, basic concepts of survival and evolution are at the heart of this understanding of the defenses of the body. The human body can and will defend its most vital functions first before defending its more superficial functions.

Homeopaths observe that a truly effective therapy sometimes elicits a temporary exacerbation of certain symptoms, usually in the superficial ones or sometimes ones that the person had many years previously. Evidence that homeopathic medicines are not just placeboes is this exacerbation of certain symptoms prior to a cure after homeopathic treatment.

This “externalization” of symptoms is commonly observed by homeopaths who witness that approximately 20-30% of their patients with a chronic illness tend to experience skin symptoms, nasal or bronchial discharges, diarrhea, early menstruation with clots, profuse perspiration, or some other externalization of the disease process after an effective homeopathic treatment is provided.

Distinct from methods that suppress disease are those that help disease express and externalize itself. Homeopathy`s use of the principle of similars (using medicines bases on their ability to CAUSE the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing) is one important safeguard against disease suppression because it mimics the wisdom of the body rather than suppresses its symptoms.

Homeopathy is a type of “medical biomimicry” because a homeopathic medicine is chosen for its ability to mimic the symptoms that the sick person is experiencing. Because there is a certain wisdom to the bodymind, mimicking this wisdom is a good way to elicit a real healing.

Resources:

Larry Malerba, DO. Green Medicine: Challenging the Assumptions of Conventional Health Care. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2010.

Dennis Chernin, MD, MPH. The Complete Homeopathic Resource for Common Illnesses. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2006.

I believe what prevents men from accepting the homeopathic principles is ignorance, but ignorance is criminal when human lives are at stake. No honest man faced with the facts of homeopathy can refuse to accept it. He has no choice. When I had to face it, I had to become a follower. There was no choice if I were to continue to be an honest man. … Truth always demands adherence and offers no alternative.

–Sir John Weir, physician to King George VI and to four generations of British monarchs
“The King’s Speech” depicts the compelling story of King George VI and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Lionel Logue was neither a physician nor a conventional speech therapist, but his treatment strategies were impressively successful.

The British Royal Family has been known for being exceedingly conservative and embodying traditional ideals of family and public service, but they are also known to have special appreciation and even advocacy for certain unconventional treatments that really worked, whether conventional medicine accepted them or not. Such were their experiences with Mr. Logue’s speech therapy and the respected and widely practiced, but often misunderstood science and art of homeopathic medicine.

King George VI was neither the first nor the last of the British royals to use and benefit from homeopathy. Queen Adelaide (1792-1849), wife of King William IV, first made public her special interest in this “new medicine” in 1835. Other British aristocrats shared the queen’s interests, including the Marquess of Anglesey who crossed the British Channel to go to Paris for treatment by the founder of homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843).

Queen Adelaide had been suffering from a serious malady that the court physicians couldn’t cure. The queen called for the services of one of Hahnemann’s oldest and most faithful colleagues, Dr. Johann Ernst Stapf (1788-1860), who cured her, creating the first of many supporters of homeopathy among British royalty.
Various kings and queens of Great Britain since Queen Adelaide have openly sought medical care from homeopathic physicians. Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was treated by Dr Frederick Quin, the personal physician/homeopath to Prince Leopold of the Belgians, who was the great uncle of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s much loved husband. A recent popular movie, “Young Victoria,” chronicled their love affair.

Princess Mary, who later became Queen Mary (1865-1953), wife of King George V, headed the fundraising efforts to move and expand the London Homeopathic Hospital. King George V(1865-1936) was appreciative of homeopathy because it provided him with the practical benefit of treating his seasickness, a condition that he tended to experience because he was so fond of sailing.

King George V was known to have treated for this condition with Tabacum, a homeopathic dose of tobacco that was prescribed by his homeopathic doctor, Dr Sir John Weir (1879-1971).(1) Because smoking of tobacco is known to cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea, homeopathic doses of this medicine can help to relieve common symptoms experienced with seasickness.

During more recent times, a study published in a medical journal published by the American Medical Association found that Cocculus compositum (aka Vertigoheel, a mixture or formula of homeopathic medicines) was as effective as a conventional drug for dizziness…and was safer.(2) This study showed that homeopathic treatment showed a clinically relevant reduction in the mean frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo (dizziness) attacks.

Ironically, his son, who later became King George VI (1895-1952), had a completely different experience with tobacco. In contrast, he was chronically addicted to tobacco which led to his early death. Still, King George VI was appreciative enough of homeopathy that he named a prize racehorse Hypericum, after a notable homeopathic medicine for injury to nerves.

King George VI was an expert user of homeopathic medicine, and in 1948 he showed his profound appreciation for this system of medicine by granting royal title to the London Homeopathic Hospital. It was deemed the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital for many decades, until 2010, when its name was changed to become the Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.

The wife of King George VI was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002), who bore two daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon become known as ‘Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mother,’ to differentiate her from her daughter today’s Queen Elizabeth II (1926- )

The Queen Mother was particularly appreciative of the homeopathic medicine, Arnica. She asserted, “I think Arnica is the most marvelous medicine and every doctor, including those not trained in homeopathy, should use Arnica.” She realized that some people are skeptical of homeopathy, but she knew that such skepticism was common in people who didn’t understand homeopathy or had simply not used it. She commonly used Arnica on her dogs whenever they injured themselves and encouraged her friends to use it.

Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne in 1952 and has been a long-time patron to the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, which underwent a $35 million refurbishing in 2005. When Queen Elizabeth II visited the Hospital in 2000, she looked straight at the picture of Sir John Weir, who was his homeopathic physician, and said “he did a lot of good for my father.” To keep up with the times, in 2010, this hospital changed its name to Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.

The early growth of homeopathy in Britain in the mid-1800s became possible in large part through royal support and British aristocracy. The first British homeopath to British royalty, Dr. Frederick Quin, was a son of the Duchess of Devonshire (1765-1824), and thus himself an aristocrat. When Quin began his full-time homeopathic practice in London in 1832, he primarily treated members of his own noble class.
Today, the homeopath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Dr. Peter Fisher, who is also medical director of the Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.

Other European Monarchs’ Love for Homeopathy

Ultimately, Sir John Weir was not only the homeopathic physician to King George VI, he also provided homeopathic treatment for six other monarchs, including King Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor, George VI, Elizabeth II, King Gustav V of Sweden (1858-1950), and King Haakon VII of Norway (1872-1957).(3)

It is worthy of note that British royalty were not the only nobles to embrace and advocate for homeopathy. In the mid-19th century, a remarkable 77 homeopathic physicians served as the personal physicians to monarchs and their families.(4) More detail about these physicians and their treatment of various monarchs are readily available.(5)

Napoleon III and Empress Eugenie of France were known advocates of homeopathy, and in fact, Napoleon III bestowed the Knight’s Cross of the Legion of Honor upon his family’s homeopathic physician, Dr. A.J. Davet, as well as upon Dr. Alexandre Charge for his remarkable results using homeopathic medicines in treating patients with cholera and upon Dr. J. Mabit for his work as the head of a hospital in Bordeaux where he consistently found that homeopathic treatment was effective.

Numerous kings, queens, and dukes from Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Prussia were known advocates for homeopathy as were Czar Nicholas and Czar Alexander II of Russia. Despite the immense power that these monarchs had at that time, the resistance to homeopathy from conventional physicians was so strong that these monarchs were unable to overcome the economic power of the doctors and pharmacists of that era. One reporter noted that even the czars of Russia were unable to breakdown “the Chinese wall by which the medical hierarchy surrounds its domain”.(6)

Still, these monarchs could exercise their free will with any health care, and they consistently chose homeopathic treatment, making homeopathy “the royal medicine.”

References:

(1) Morrell P. Tobacco: Two Royal anecdotes. BMJ. 29 January 2001, 322:203. http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7280/203.2.extract/reply

(2) Weiser, M, Strosser, W, Klein, P, “Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study,” Archives of Otolaryngology¬¬¬¬–Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998,124:879-85. Although Tabacum is a leading medicine in homeopathy for vertigo/dizziness, this ingredient is not in this specific homeopathic formula medicine. The homeopathic medicine formula, Vertigoheel/Cocculus compositum, has been found to be effective for various ailments for which dizziness is a leading symptom.

(3) In 1939, King Haakon VII of Norway bestowed upon Sir John Weir the Knight Grand Cross of St. Olav, the highest honor granted by his country (Homoeopathy, 1939). Homoeopathy, Knight Grand Cross of St. Olav, March 1939, p. 96.

(4) Everest, Rev. T. R. A Popular View of Homeopathy. New York: William Radde, 1842.

(5) See the chapter “The Royal Medicine: Monarchs’ Longtime Love for Homeopathy” in
Ullman D. The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2007.

(6) Historical and Statistical Report of the Rise, Progress, and Present Condition of Homeopathy in Russia, Transactions of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1876, vol. II.

Health and medical journalists are not presently providing the public with what might be the most important health advice that they should be given during the flu season: people with the flu should avoid taking fever-reducing drugs, such as aspirin or acetaminophen (aka Tylenol), except in rare situations.

It is widely recognized that fever is a vital defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection. A fever enables the body to increase its production of interferon, an important antiviral substance that is critical for fighting infection. Fever also increases white blood cell mobility and activity, which are instrumental factors in fighting infection. Jane Brody, a long-time respected health columnist for the New York Times, reported back in 1982 on the healing benefits of fever. She noted, “A number of physicians, including pediatricians, are now suggesting that moderate fevers be allowed to run their course, for they may shorten the illness, potentiate the action of antibiotics and reduce the chances of spreading the infection to others.”(1)

Recognition that fever is beneficial has been known for more than 2,000 years, and historically, the healing benefits of fever are so substantial that many patients have actually been treated with ”fever therapy” to aid their recovery from such ailments as cancer, syphilis, tuberculosis and even mania.(2)(3) However, in the 1800′s, aspirin compounds that rapidly reduced fevers became commercially available, and the medical view of fever changed dramatically. Since the mid-1800s, drug companies have successfully convinced conventional physicians and the general public to become vigilant in bringing down fevers, even sometimes using such drastic measures as cold baths and alcohol rubs along with aspirin.

In reference to the flu and fever, the bottom line is that it makes little sense to aggressively suppress the body’s natural defenses against viral infection. There are, of course, some exceptions here. For instance, it may make sense to seek medical care if one’s fever is above 104 degrees for over six hours or in any fever in an infant under four months of age.

Calling Dr. Gupta: CNN’s Correspondent Gives Himself Questionable Medical Advice

“Fever phobia” is so rampant that many usually intelligent people, including physicians and medical reporters, forget what they know about the inherent defenses of the body when they become sick.

On September 23, Sanjay Gupta, MD, CNN’s chief medical correspondent, described his own experience in getting the H1NI flu while reporting from Afghanistan.(4) Although Dr. Gupta reported that he experienced a “high fever,” he never gave specifics, but it is unlikely that over 104 degrees. The fact that Dr. Gupta was away from home and in war zone probably led him to want some relief of his fever, and because of this, he chose to take Tylenol. However, he certainly didn’t help himself by taking this drug to suppress his fever.

It is therefore no wonder that he became the sickest he has ever become. Taking drugs that suppress fever disables the body’s own defenses in fighting infection. It is akin to unscrewing the warning oil pressure light in your car as a way to get rid of that irritating red signal. Such “treatment” is not curative, and in fact, it can lead to much more serious problems.

Ironically, the word “symptom” derives from the words “sign” or “signal”…and just turning “off” a sign or signal is simply not smart, even if double-blind studies show that unscrewing the warning bulb is “effective” in turning the light off.

Ultimately, Dr. Gupta missed a great opportunity to educate the public about not taking fever-reducing drugs, except in certain extreme fevers. Perhaps this article will “light a fire” underneath him to do so.

The New Drug Pushers: Parents

In a 2007 survey of Australian parents published in a pediatrics journal, a shocking 91% of parents used fever-suppressing drugs in the treatment of their children’s fever.(5) Even more startling is the fact that this survey found that the medications were refused or spat out by the child in 44% of the cases, and yet, 62.4 of the parents actually used force to get their child to take these drugs, using different methods of ingestion (29.5%) or by using a suppository (20.8%).

It is interesting to note that children tend to have an inherent fear of doctors, and this fear may not simply be the result of getting injections from them. This fear may be an instinctual fear that what doctors offer them may not really be good for them, despite the seemingly short-term benefits of many drugs. It may be time for us to listen to our children.

Serious Problems from Aspirin and Acetaminophen

Many people minimize the problems from these common drugs, but do so at their own and their family’s peril.

Children who get a viral infection and are given aspirin can lead to Reye’s syndrome, a serious neurological condition that can cause death. Aspirin is also known to thin the blood and increase the chances of various bleeding disorders. Its use more or less doubles the risk of a severe gastrointestinal event, which in most cases can lead to hospitalization. Lower doses that people take to reduce heart problems only seem to decrease these risks by a small amount.

Many people take acetaminophen because it is not associated with increased bleeding. However, the general public is usually not aware of the fact that poison control centers in the US receive more calls as a result of an overdose of this drug than any other drug.(6) This same problem exists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Most commonly, overdoses of acetaminophen can lead to acute liver failure. In children, it has been associated with increased asthma and eczema symptoms.

Safer Solutions for the Flu…

Instead of using conventional drugs that suppress fevers or that inhibit other important defenses of the body, it makes more sense to use some type of natural medicines that mimic and augment the wisdom of the body.

Homeopathic medicines are a wonderful method to augment the body’s own defenses so that they can more effectively heal themselves from various ailments, including the flu. Because of the similarity between the 1918 flu and the H1N1 flu, it may be helpful to reference homeopathy’s impressive successes in treating people during the 1918 flu.(7) The death rates in the homeopathic hospitals in the US were only around 1%, while the death rates in conventional hospitals were closer to 30%. Another important fact from that era is that New York City had the lowest mortality rate during the 1918 flu than any city in the U.S., and this impressive statistic is primarily due to the fact that this city’s health commissioner at that time was Royal Copeland, MD, a renowned homeopathic physician, who later became a thrice-elected U.S. Senator. (Franklin D. Roosevelt was even his campaign manager during his first election as senator.) (8) Copeland asserted, “There can be no doubt that the superiority of homeopathy in a purely medical condition is just as great as it was fifty years ago.”

One of today’s most popular homeopathic medicines for the flu is the popular Oscillococcinum, a medicine that has been used by homeopaths since the 1920s. There have been four controlled studies that have shown that this medicine is effective in reducing the symptoms of influenza as compared with those people given a placebo.(9)

The effectiveness of another homeopathic remedy, called Gripp-Heel, was compared with that of conventional treatments in a prospective, observational cohort study in 485 patients with mild viral infections and symptoms such as fever, headache, muscle pain, cough or sore throat.(10) As evaluated by the practitioners, 67.9% of patients were considered asymptomatic at the end of Gripp-Heel therapy vs. 47.9% of patients in the control group. Practitioners judged homeopathic treatments as ‘successful’ in 78.1% of cases vs. 52.2% for conventional therapies. Tolerability and compliance were ‘very good’ given for 88.9% of patients in the homeopathic group vs. 38.8% in the conventional treatment group.

The above homeopathic medicines are primarily helpful during the first 48 hours of onset of the flu. Other homeopathic medicines to consider during this time and afterwards include: Gelsemium, Bryonia, Ipecacuanha, Arsenicum album, Eupatorium perf., Rhus toxicodendron, and Baptisia (homeopathic medicines are traditionally listed by their Latin names so that consumers and doctors will know the precise plant, mineral, or animal species of every medicine). Each of these medicines has a history of efficacy in homeopathic doses for treating the specific syndrome of symptoms that each has been found to cause when given experimentally in overdose to healthy people. To determine the details of each of these medicines, please consult a homeopathic guidebook.

References:

(1) Brody J. Fever: New View Stresses its Healing Benefits. New York Times, December 28, 1982.

(2) Hobohm U. Fever therapy revisited. British Journal of Cancer (2005) 92, 421-425. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602386

(3) Brody J. Fever: New View Stresses its Healing Benefits. New York Times, December 28, 1982.

(4) http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/….

(5) Walsh A, Edwards H, Fraser J. Over-the-counter medication use for childhood fever: A cross-sectional study of Australian parents. J Paediatr Child Health. 2007 June 29.

(6) Lee WM (July 2004). “Acetaminophen and the U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group: lowering the risks of hepatic failure”. Hepatology 40 (1): 6-9. doi:10.1002/hep.20293.

(7) Marino R. Flu pandemics: homeopathic prophylaxis and definition of the epidemic genius . Int J High Dilution Res 2009; 8(28): 100-109. http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index….

(8) Robins N. Copeland’s Cure: Homeopathy and the War between Conventional and Alternative Medicine. New York: Random House, 2005, p. 154.

(9) Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4 http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/…

(10) Rabe, M. Weiser, P. Klein, Effectiveness and tolerability of a homoeopathic remedy compared with conventional therapy for mild viral infections. Int J Clin Pract. 2004 Sep;58(9):827-32.

We all know many children whom conventional medicine has provided great benefits, but we also know many children for whom conventional medicine has not worked. And sadly, we all know many children for whom conventional medicine has hurt…badly.

It is important for parents to know that most drugs are not adequately tested on children. They are tested on adults, and doctors estimate (rather “guesstimate”) the appropriate dose for children based on crude determinations such as their weight.

Worse still, a shockingly high percentage of children are prescribing two or more drugs concurrently. Whenever a doctor prescribes two or more drugs to your child (or to anyone), it is important to realize that little or no research has ever confirmed the safety or efficacy of such poly-pharmacy.

Ultimately, the high number of prescription drugs prescribed to children today and the serious side effects that they cause constitutes a type of “medical children abuse.” Although this is harsh, even very harsh language, the statistics confirm this serious problem.

From just 1995 to 2002 alone, the number of anti-psychotic medications prescribed for children increased five-fold (SFChronicle, 3-17-06). These drugs have been linked to causing severe hallucinations (SFC, 3-22-06) and even to suicide (SFC, 2-1-04). As a parent myself, it is shocking that safer methods are not exhausted before resorting to more dangerous drug therapies.

It is important to note that doctors are not the only source of the problem here. A 1999 survey of pediatricians reported that parents “always, most of the time, or often pressure them (pediatricians) to prescribe antibiotics when their children are ill but antibiotics are not indicated.”

What Parents Can Do…

In light of these and many other studies, one important action that parents can take to optimize your child’s immunity is to avoid prescription and OTC drugs except in medical emergencies. Remember the words of the father of medicine, Hippocrates, when he said, “First, do no harm.” This dictum was not just to doctors but to anyone who is treating sick people.

And here is where using homeopathic medicines can provide a REAL alternative. Because homeopathic medicines often provide a rapid result, these natural medicines are ideal for many common acute problems that your child may experience. The trick is to learn how to use homeopathic medicines. For self-care, you have two choices:

• Get a homeopathic guidebook (or two or three) that provides instruction on how to use homeopathic medicines (see the Resources section below for a list of some of the better guidebooks)
• Get a “homeopathic medicine kit” so that you can be ready to your kid at night and on weekend (when they tend to get sick) (check-out a wide selection at: www.homeopathic.com)

People generally get the best results when they use the guidebooks to select the individually indicated homeopathic medicine for your child’s unique pattern of symptoms. If, however, you cannot figure out which one remedy fits your child’s symptoms, I recommend that you consider using a homeopathic formula (these formulas make homeopathy very “user-friendly” because they include several of the most commonly indicated remedies for the specific ailment that your child is experiencing).

Based on homeopathic principles and experience, one of the ways that chronic diseases develop is by the suppression of acute ailments. Learn to use homeopathic medicines to treat common respiratory infections, sore throats, ear infections, influenza, allergies, and headaches. You will optimize your child’s immunity and prevent the development of chronic symptoms and syndromes by learning to treat and really cure simple acute ailments in your child.

The Limitations Of Homeopathic Self-Care

If your child gets recurrent ailments or if the same or similar symptoms keep returning, it is generally best to seek professional homeopathic care. It is also best to seek professional homeopathic care for the more serious pediatric ailments, including but not limited to high fevers (103 and higher), asthma, ADD/ADHD (or significant behavioral problems), and genetically inherited conditions.

Homeopaths are specifically trained to prescribe high-potency homeopathic “constitutional medicines.” These highly individually selected medicines are prescribed for your child’s unique genetic, physical, and psychological state, and 200+ years of experience using homeopathic medicines have found that these medicines can powerfully strengthen a child’s immune and defense system.

If you do not know a homeopath in your area, you might find someone nearby by going to:

• www.homeopathic.org
• www.homeopathicdirectory.com
• www.homeopathic.com (they provide a free list, upon request, with any book order)

Homeopathic Guidebooks for Family Medicine:

• Dennis Chernin, MD, MPH, The Complete Homeopathic Resource for Common Illnesses. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2006
• Stephen Cummings, MD, and Dana Ullman, MPH, Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 2004
• Dana Ullman, MPH, Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants. New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1994

Dana Ullman, MPH is the author of 9 books on homeopathic medicines, including Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants and his newest book The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. His website, www.homeopathic.com, is a rich source of information and resources on homeopathy.

Numerous surveys over the past 150 plus years have confirmed that people who seek homeopathic treatment tend to be considerably more educated than those who don’t (1). What is not as well known is the fact that homeopathic medicine is the leading “alternative” treatment used by physicians in Europe…and growing numbers of the citizenry.
And despite homeopathy’s impressive popularity in Europe, it is actually even more popular in India where over 100 million people depend solely on this form of medical care (2). Further, according to an A.C. Neilsen survey in India, 62 percent of current homeopathy users have never tried conventional medicines and 82 percent of homeopathy users would not switch to conventional treatments (3).

Skeptics of homeopathy insist that homeopathic medicines do not work, but have difficulty explaining how so many people use and rely upon this system of medicine to treat themselves for so many acute and chronic diseases; and a very large number of these people do not have to use anything else. A previous article that I wrote at this site presented a strong case for the scientific and historical evidence for homeopathy. Further, other articles here have provided additional scientific evidence for the use of homeopathic medicines in respiratory allergies and in pediatrics. Although a small and vocal group of skeptics of homeopathy continue to deny its viability, homeopathy’s growing popularity throughout the world amongst physicians, other health professionals, and educated populations continue to prove that skeptics are really simply medical fundamentalists.

The entire field of “alternative and complementary medicine” was so hot in the 1980s that, according to a respected market survey, the field of alternative and complementary medicine in Europe was second only to the computer industry for growth during this decade (4). This explosion of interest in natural medicine has continued in the 21st century.
In 1998, homeopathy was the most frequently used CAM therapy in five out of 14 surveyed countries in Europe and among the three most frequently used CAM therapies in 11 out of 14 surveyed countries (5). Three out of the four Europeans know about homeopathy and of these people 29 percent use it for their own health care. In other words, approximately 100 million Europeans use homeopathic medicines (6).

The sales of homeopathic and anthroposophical medicines grew by 60 percent between 1995 and 2005, from 590 million Euros in 1995 to 775 million Euros in 2001 and to $930 million Euros in 2005 (7). Because of homeopathy’s impressive and growing popularity in Europe, this alternative treatment poses a significant threat to conventional medicine, which may explain why there are ongoing efforts to attack it (and homeopaths) using devious and questionably ethical means.

France

Homeopathy is particularly popular in France, where it is the leading alternative therapy. In 1982, 16 percent of the population used homeopathic medicine, rising to 29 percent in 1987, and to 36 percent in 1992 (8). In 2004, 62 percent of French mothers used homeopathic medicines in the previous 12 months (9). A survey of French pharmacists was conducted in 2004 and found that an astounding 94.5 percent reported advising pregnant women to use homeopathic medicines (10).

Homeopathy is popular not only among the French public but also among the French medical community. As many as 70 percent of physicians are receptive to homeopathy and consider it effective, at least 25,000 physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines for their patients. Homeopathy is taught in at least seven medical schools: Besancon, Bordeaux, Lille, Limoges, Marseille, Paris-Nord, and Poitiers, and there are numerous postgraduate training programs. Courses in homeopathy are taught in 21 of France’s 24 schools of pharmacy, and also taught in two dental schools, two veterinary medical schools, and three schools of midwivery.

United Kingdom

England’s Royal Family has been homeopathy’s strongest advocates, thereby confirming that this system of natural medicine is not some “new age” therapy. There are five homeopathic hospitals working within the National Health Service, some of them with a two-year waiting list for non-emergency visits to a homeopath.
According to a House of Lords report (2000), 17 percent of the British population use homeopathic medicines (11). The respect accorded homeopathy and homeopathic practice by British physicians is evidenced by a 1986 survey in the British Medical Journal that showed that 42 percent of physicians referred patients to homeopathic doctors (12). Other evidence of support from health professionals was a 1990 survey of British pharmacists that found 55 percent considered homeopathic medicines “useful,” while only 14 percent considered them “useless” (13). The normally conservative British Pharmaceutical Association held a debate in 1992 to decide whether pharmacists should promote homeopathic medicines (14). They concluded by a large majority that they should. The field of complementary medicine has gained much support in the 1990s. In 1993 the British Medical Association published a book entitled, Complementary Medicine: New Approaches to Good Practice (15). Britain’s health minister (in 1994), Dr. Brian Mawhinney, stated, “Complementary medicine has generally proved popular with patients, and a recent survey found that 81 percent of patients are satisfied with the treatment they received” (16). Another health minister stated that 80 percent of general practitioners want training in complementary therapies; 75 percent now refer patients to complementary therapists.

Despite the use and acceptance of homeopathy throughout the U.K., there is a very active group of skeptics, with significant Big Pharma funding, who work vigorously to attack this system of natural medicine. Even though there is a wide variety of serious and significant pressing issues in British medicine and science today, an active group of skeptics of homeopathy successfully resurrected in October, 2009, a House of Commons committee, called the Science and Technology Committee, with the intent to issue a report on homeopathy. A leading skeptics organization, Sense about Science, that has been pushing for the re-creation of this Committee is led by a former public relations professional who worked for a PR company that represents many Big Pharma companies. Of additional interest is the fact that other Directors of the Sense about Science organization are a mixture of former or present libertarians, Marxists, and Trotskyists who also, strangely enough, seem to advocate for the GMO industry (ironically, libertarians normally advocate for a “live and let live” philosophy, but in this instance, it seems that they prefer to take choice in medical treatment away from British consumers).

Sense about Science is a registered UK charity despite being a political pressure group. As such they have to divulge their sources of income which they do on their website. Not surprisingly, much of this comes from named pharmaceutical manufacturers.

One of the investigators for the House of Commons Science Committee is a Liberal Democrat MP, Evan Harris. He has collaborated with Sense About Science on various projects, and he was also one of the skeptic demonstrators against the national pharmacy chain, Boots, which sells homeopathic medicines. This advocacy role does not make him an unprejudiced observer as is required for this type of investigation.

A report from this kangaroo court was issued recommending that the National Health Service stop funding for homeopathy and homeopathic doctors, despite the support for homeopathy and for consumer choice from Mike O’Brien, the country’s present Health Minister. This report is only of an advisory nature, and because the Health Minister has already expressed his support for consumers’ right to choose their own health care, it is uncertain what, if anything, will result of this report. What was most surprising about this report was that it verified that when people repeat a lie frequently enough, such as “there is no research on homeopathy,” many people actually believe it, despite its transparent falsity.

Any rational person should and must be very suspicious of this “report.” The MPs (Members of Parliament) who were a part of the Science and Technology Committee which voted for this anti-homeopathy report comprised of five members, with three members barely eking out their victory. Of the three votes, two members did not attend any of the investigational meetings, one of whom was such a new member of the committee that he wasn’t even a member of the committee during the hearings, and the remaining “yes” vote was from Evan Harris, a medical doctor and devout antagonist to homeopathy. This report was not exactly a vote of and for the people.

In Scotland, 12 percent of general practitioners use homeopathic medicines and 49 percent of all general practitioner practices prescribe them (at least one medical doctor in a group practice)(17). The use of homeopathic medicines is not simply popular in the treatment of humans but also animals. Although there is little data presently available on this subject, one survey discovered that 20 percent of Irish milk producers have tried homeopathic medicines to treat mastitis or high cell count cows, and 43 percent believe that they work. In the herds surveyed, 50 percent added homeopathic medicines to the cow’s drinking water, 27 percent administered medicines via injection, six percent orally doses the cows, and six percent of herds placed the medicines in the cow’s vagina (18).

Ireland

A survey in Ireland was conducted at 13 pediatric settings over a 4-month period (19). They found that 57 percent of parents reported using CAM for their child. Use was significantly higher in the two to four years age group. The most common medicinal CAMs used were vitamins (88 percent), fish oils (27 percent) and Echinacea (26 percent). The most common non-medicinal CAMs used were homeopathy (16 percent) and craniosacral therapy (14 percent). Only 13 percent of parents had informed their pediatrician of their child’s CAM use.

Germany

The German people are so supportive of natural medicine that the German government mandated that all medical school curricula include information about natural medicines. Approximately 10 percent of German doctors specialize in homeopathy, with approximately 10 percent more prescribing homeopathic remedies on occasion. In 1993, there were 1,993 medical doctors who had formally qualified in homeopathy, while in 2006, this number jumped over 100 percent to 6,073 (20). In Germany there are 9,000 natural health practitioners called heilpraktikers in 1993 and over 20,000 in 2007. Approximately 20-30 of heilpraktikers specialize in homeopathy.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a large random sample of 516 German outpatient care physicians with qualifications in 13 medical fields representative of a basic population of 118,085 statutory health insurance physicians in November and December 2005 as part of a national healthcare survey (21). In this survey, 51 percent were in favor of CAM use (26 percent were very much in favor, 25 percent were in favor). This survey found that 38 percent of the medical doctors prescribed homeopathic medicines.

A survey of departments of obstetrics in hospitals in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, found that acupuncture and homeopathic medicine were the two most commonly used CAM practices (22). A total of 187 department of obstetrics were identified, and 138 (73.4 percent) responded to a questionnaire. Almost 96 percent of the obstetrical departments offered homeopathic medicines for obstetrical care.

The 2003-2006 German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS) found a higher than expected use of homeopathic medicine amongst German children (23). The survey found that pediatric homeopathy is quite popular in Germany, particularly among children from families with a higher socioeconomic status. Nearly half of the homeopathic preparations were obtained by prescriptions from medical doctors or Heilpraktiker (non-medical practitioners) and used most often to treat certain self-limiting conditions. About 60 percent of homeopathy users concomitantly received conventional medicines. Homeopathy use was closely related to socioeconomic factors, with a significantly higher prevalence rate found in the zero to six year age group, among children residing in the former West Germany or the south of Germany, among children with a poor health status, with no immigration background , who received breast-feeding greater than 6 months, were from upper social-class families, and whose children’s mothers were college educated.

In 2002, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported that 75 percent of Germans have used complementary or natural medicine (24). They also reported that 5,700 doctors received specialized training in natural medicine, with this number doubling to 10,800 by 2000. Homeopathic medicine is practiced by 4,500 medical doctors in Germany, almost twice as many as did so in 1994. The German government conducted this survey, and it also discovered that there was a 33 percent reduction in sick days if people used natural therapies, especially homeopathy or acupuncture. It was also reported that women used natural therapies more than men did, but when men used them, they benefited more than women did.

In 2009 a survey of Germans who used homeopathy or acupuncture was published (25). This survey found that seven percent of the population used homeopathy and 10 percent used acupuncture. Individuals who had a high education level used homeopathy (68 percent), as compared with 53 percent who used acupuncture.
A survey of patients in Germany with chronic lymphocytic leukemia found that 44 percent had used alternative treatments. No correlation was seen with educational level, gender, or previous or current chemotherapy. The most common alternative or complementary treatment modality was vitamin supplementation (26 percent), followed by mineral (18 percent), homeopathic (14 percent), and mistletoe therapy (9.2 percent) (26).
A 2008 survey of German children with cancer was conducted and which found that 35 percent of the responders had used CAM (27). The most frequently used methods were homeopathy, dietary supplements and anthroposophic medicine including mistletoe therapy. Factors which increased the probability of using CAM were the previous use of CAM, higher social status and poor prognosis of the child’s disease. An impressively high percentage of parents of patients (89 percent) reported that they would recommend CAM to other parents.

The use of homeopathy and CAM in Germany by people with other chronic disease is also high, as was observed in a survey of German’s with multiple sclerosis (28). A 53-item survey was mailed to the members of the German Multiple Sclerosis Society, chapter of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Surveys of 1,573 patients were analyzed. In comparison with conventional medicine, more patients displayed a positive attitude toward complementary and alternative medicine (44 percent vs 38 percent, P less than 0.05), with 70 percent reporting lifetime use of at least one method. Among a wide variety of complementary and alternative medicine, diet modification (41 percent), Omega-three fatty acids (37 percent), vitamins E (28 percent), B (36 percent), and C (28 percent), homeopathy (26 percent), and selenium (24 percent) were cited most frequently. Most respondents (69 percent) were satisfied with the effects of complementary and alternative medicine. Use of complementary and alternative medicine was associated with religiosity, functional independence, female sex, white-collar job, and higher education (P less than 0.05). Compared with conventional therapies, complementary and alternative medicine rarely showed unwanted side effects (9 percent vs 59 percent, P less than 0.00001).

Sales of homeopathic medicines in Germany were approximately $428 million in 1991, growing at a rate of about 10 percent per year. Evidence of the significant support from the German medical community is the fact that 85 percent of these sales are prescriptions from physicians. Surveys indicate that 98 percent of pharmacies sell homeopathic medicines.

Switzerland

A government-sponsored survey was conducted in Switzerland that evaluated patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care and that compared homeopathic treatment and conventional medical treatment (29). A total of 3,126 adult patients responded to a questionnaire, 1,363 of whom received conventional medical treatment and 1,702 who received homeopathic treatment. This survey found that a higher percentage of homeopathic patients had chronic and severe conditions than the conventional medical patients, that homeopathic patients were more often “completely satisfied” with their treatment (53 percent vs. 43 percent), that homeopathic patients experienced significantly fewer side effects (7.3 percent vs. 16.1 percent), that the proportion of patients reporting complete resolution of symptoms was non-significantly higher in the conventional medical patients (28 percent vs. 21 percent). What is particularly important about this survey is the observation that homeopathic patients had a higher percentage of seriously ill patients but they expressed a much higher amount of satisfaction with their treatment than the patients who received conventional medical treatment. This survey also confirmed a common observation about people who seek homeopathic treatment and that is they were much more educated than those who didn’t (32.4 percent vs. 24.7 percent received “higher education”).

The Swiss Federal Office for Public Health issued a report to the government of Switzerland which concluded that “the effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence, and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe” (30).

Other European countries in which homeopathy has a relatively strong presence include Switzerland, where different surveys have suggested that somewhere between 11 percent and 27 percent of general practitioners and internists prescribe homeopathic medicines; Italy where nine percent of the medical doctors prescribe homeopathic remedies sometimes; and the Netherlands where 45 percent of physicians consider homeopathic medicines effective and 47 percent of medical doctors use one or more complementary therapies, with homeopathy (40 percent of these select doctors) being the most popular (31).

The prevalence of CAM use in a sample of Swiss patients undergoing kidney transplant was 11.8 percent. The most frequently used alternative therapy used among these was homeopathy (42.9 percent) (32).

Italy

In 2004 a total of 7.5 million Italians use homeopathic medicines, 2.5 million more than a survey showed in 2000 (33). Approximately 14 percent of Italian women and 10 percent of men prefer homeopathic medicine to conventional medicine. A total of 9.6 percent of children between three and five years of age are treated with homeopathic medicines. Almost 90 percent of Italians who have used such medicines say these treatments helped by them, with 30 percent saying that they used homeopathic medicines for pain syndromes and 24 percent for severe or chronic diseases.

A 2005 survey on the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) among cancer patients in Europe reported that 73 percent of the Italian cancer patients had used CAM, a number well above the European average of 36 percent (34). The most popular treatment modalities used by cancer patients in Italy were high use of homeopathy, herbal medicine, and spiritual therapies. A 2008 survey in Tuscany, Italy found that the incidence of CAM use after cancer diagnosis was 17 percent, with the most widely used forms being herbal medicine (52 percent), homeopathy (30 percent) and acupuncture (13 percent) (35). Use was higher in the urban area and among women, breast cancer patients, and persons with a higher education.

A survey of Italian children with cancer who were being treated at a conventional pediatric oncology unit found that 12.4 percent of the children used at least one type of CAM, with homeopathy being the most popular (36). Eighty-three percent of the parents of these children reported benefits, ranging from improved immune defenses, regression of diplopia, or improved blood values. This study confirmed the observation of many other surveys which found that users of CAM tended to be more educated than those who did not use CAM (37)(38)(39).

Five hundred and fifty-two patients who had inflammatory bowel disease and who were under treatment at an Italian tertiary medical referral center completed the questionnaire (40); 156 (28 percent) reported using alternative and complementary therapies, of which mainly involved homeopathy (43.6 percent), followed by controlled diets or dietary supplements (35.5 percent), herbs (28.2 percent), exercise (25.6 percent) and prayer (14.7 percent). An improvement in well-being (45.5 percent) and inflammatory bowel disease symptoms (40.3 percent) were the most commonly reported benefits. A higher education (P equal to 0.027), a more frequently relapsing disease (P equal to 0.001) and dissatisfaction with the doctor’s communication (P equal to 0.001) correlated with alternative and complementary therapy use. Non-compliance with conventional drugs, disease severity and curiosity regarding novel therapies were predictors of alternative and complementary therapy use.

Spain

In Spain, homeopathy has gotten so popular that INE, the country’s statistic institute, added expenditures on homeopathic medicines to their calculations for monthly inflation rates (41). Sales of homeopathic medicines in Spain are growing at 10-15 percent annually, with approximately 15 percent of the population saying that they have used a homeopathic medicine and 25 percent said that they would be happy to try one (42).

Eastern Europe
When the Iron Curtain was up, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany banned homeopathy, but this medical iron curtain fell with communism. Homeopathy holds a unique place in Russia, where it has been widely accepted, but is not sanctioned by the state medical bureaucracy. Thus, homeopathic care is not free and has been a part of the new Russian economy where fees are paid for health services. Demand for homeopathic care is so great that Russians prefer to pay for homeopathic care than to receive free conventional medical care.

Some skeptics have asserted that homeopathy and natural medicines are becoming increasingly popular in Russia because “real medicine” is either unavailable or too expensive (43). However, this assumption has been disproven, because the trend toward homeopathic and natural medicine is particularly popular among those Russians who are more educated and are in higher economic classes. Journalists and skeptics tend to assume that homeopathic medicines simply do not work, and thus they create fanciful theories about why the use of homeopathy is increasing.
A survey of Russian physicians in three academic hospitals in St. Petersburg was published in 2008 (44). This survey found that 100 percent of the respondents had practice CAM and/or referred patients to at least two CAM therapies. On average, each physician had practiced or referred patients to 12.7 different CAM treatments. Homeopathic medicine was the 8th most popular, with 58 percent using or referring for homeopathic treatment, 31 percent using on themselves, 29 percent using it on their own patients, and 38 percent referring for homeopathic care.

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 Czecholslovakia, a homeopathic organization in the Czech Republic 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.

REFERENCES:

(1) Rothstein, W. Physicians in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.
(2) Prasad R. Homoeopathy booming in India. Lancet, 370:November 17, 2007,1679-80. (Additional note: Even though the overall mortality rate in India is quite poor compared with most modern First World countries, this is primarily due to the large number of exceedingly poor people. The mortality rate of urban middle and upper class people in India is comparable, if not better, than similar populations in the USA.)
(3) A C Neilsen survey backs homeopathy benefits. Business Standard. September 4, 2007. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/a-c-nielsen-survey-backs-homeopathy-benefits/295891/
(4) “Alternative Medicine/Alternative Medical Market,” Frost and Sullivan Ltd. Report #E874, London, 1986.
(5) Norges offentlige utredninger, NOU 1998:21 Alternativ medisin. (Official report published by the Norwegian Department of Health. Available at: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/ministries/hod/Documents/NOUer/1998/NOU-1998-21.html?id=141407
(6) di Sarsina PR, Iseppato I. Looking for a person-centered medicine:non convent8onal medicine in the conventional European and Italian setting. eCAM, 2009; doi:10.1093/ecam/nep048.
(7) ECHAMP, Facts and Figures, Second edition, 2007. www.echamp.eu
(8) L’Homeopathie en 1993. Lyons: Syndicat National de la Pharmacie Homeopathique, 1993 (Quoting COFREMCA and IFOP public opinion surveys).
(9) Transactions, Nutrition Business Journal, July 7 2004.
(10) Damase-Michel, C., Vie, C., Lacroix, I., Lapeyre-Mestre, M., Montastruc, J.L. Drug Counselling in Pregnancy: An Opinion Survey of French Community Pharmacists, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004 March, 18;13(10):711.
(11) House of Lords Science and Technology Report, November, 2000
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/123/12303.htm
(12) Richard Wharton and George Lewith, “Complementary Medicine and the General Practitioner,” British Medical Journal, 292 (June 7, 1986): 1498-1500.
(13) Nelson, op. cit.
(14) Steven Kayne, “Homeopathic Pharmacy: Education, Research and Optimism,” British Homoeopathic Journal, October, 1993: 225.
(15) British Medical Association, Complementary Medicine: New Approaches to Good Practice, Oxford: Oxford University, 1993.
(16) Universal News Services, June 16, 1994.
(17) Ross, S, Simpson, CR, McLay, JS. British Homoeopathic and herbal prescribing in general practice in Scotland. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 62,6: December 2006, 647-652.
(18) Buss, Jessica. Irish Turn to Homoeopathy. Farmers Weekly, October 16, 1998.
(19) Low E, Murray DM, O’Mahony O, O’B Hourihane J. Complementary and alternative medicine use in Irish paediatric patients. Ir J Med Sci. 2008 Apr 22.
(20) Joos S, Musselmann B, Miksch A, Rosemann T, and Szecsenyi J. The role of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Germany – a focus group study of GPs.
BMC Health Services Research 2008, 8:127. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-127
(21) Stange R, Amhof R, Moebus S. Complementary and alternative medicine: attitudes and patterns of use by German physicians in a national survey. J Altern Complement Med. 2008 Dec;14(10):1255-61.
(22) Munstedt K, et al. Clinical indications and perceived effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine in departments of obstetrics in Germany: A questionnaire study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.013
(23) Du Y, Knopf H. Paediatric homoeopathy in Germany: results of the German health interview and examination survey for children and adolescents (KiGGS). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009 Feb 23.
(24) Tuffs, Annette, Three out of Four Germans Have Used Complementary or Natural Remedies, BMJ, November 2 2002;325:990.
(25) Bussing A, Matthiessen PF, Ostermann T. Differential usage of homeopathy and acpunture in German individuals. 2009 North American Research Conference on Complementary and Integrative Medicine, May 2009, Minneapolis, MN. Published in Alternative Therapies. May/June 2009, 15,3:S141.
(26) Hensel M, Zoz M, Ho AD. Complementary and alternative medicine in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Support Care Cancer. 2008 May 6.
(27) Laengler A, Spix C, Seifert G, Gottschling S, Graf N, Kaatsch P. Complementary and alternative treatment methods in children with cancer: A population-based retrospective survey on the prevalence of use in Germany. Eur J Cancer. 2008 Oct;44(15):2233-40.
(28) Schwarz S, Knorr C, Geiger H, Flachenecker P. Complementary and alternative medicine for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2008 Sep;14(8):1113-9.
(29) Marian F, Joost K, Saini KD, et al Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: an observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine. BMC Comp Alt Med 2008, 8:52. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-8-52.
(30) Bornhoft, G, Wolf, U., von Ammon, et al, Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness of Homeopathy in General Practice–Summarized Health Technology Assessment, Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 2006;13(suppl 2):19-29.
(31) Fisher, Peter and Ward, Adam. “Complementary Medicine in Europe,” British Medical Journal, 309, July 9, 1994: 107-10.
(32) Hess S, De Geest S, Halter K, Dickenmann M, Denhaerynck K. Prevalence and correlates of selected alternative and complementary medicine in adult renal transplant patients. Clin Transplant. 2008 Sep 11. Clin Transplant. 2008 Sep 11.
(33) ANSA English Corporate Service, 7.5 Million Italians Use Homeopathic Drugs, May 20, 2004.
(34) Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D, et al, Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol, 16: 655-663, 2005.
(35) Johannessen H, von Bornemann Hjelmborg J, Pasquarelli E, Fiorentini G, Di Costanzos F, Miccinesi G., Prevalence in the use of complementary medicine among cancer patients in Tuscany, Italy. Tumori. 2008 May-Jun;94(3):406-10.
(36) Clerici CA, Veneroni L, Giacon B, et al., Complementary and alternative medical therapies used by children with cancer treated at an Italian pediatric oncology unit. Pediatric Blood Cancer. June 2009. doi 10.1002/pbc.22093.
(37) Gomez-Martinez R, Tlacuilo-Parra A, Garibaldi-Covarrubias R. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in children with cancer in Occidental, Mexico. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;49:820-823.
(38) Gozum S, Arikan D, Bu¨yu¨kavci M. Complementary and alternative medicine use in pediatric oncology patients in eastern Turkey. Cancer Nurs 2007;30:38-44.
(39) Nathanson I, Sandler E, Ramı´rez-Garnica G, et al. Factors influencing complementary and alternative medicine use in a multisite pediatric oncology practice. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2007;29:705-708.
(40) D’Inca R, Garribba AT, Vettorato MG, Martin A, Martines D, Di Leo V, Buda A, Sturniolo GC, Use of alternative and complementary therapies by inflammatory bowel disease patients in an Italian tertiary referral centre, Dig Liver Dis. 2007 Apr 10.
(41) Reuters (Madrid) Tummy tucks join inflation calculation. February 12, 2007.
(42) Izmirlieva, Milena. Global Insight, March 28, 2007 (found in Homeopathy Today, May/June 2007, p.9).
(43) Clines, F. “With Medicine Itself Sick, Russians Turn to Herbs,” New York Times, December 31, 1990.
(44) Brown, Samuel, Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Physicians in St. Petersburg, Russia. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Apr 2008, Vol. 14, No. 3: 315-319.

It is commonly assumed that homeopathic medicines are composed of extremely small doses of medicinal substances. And yet, does anyone refer to an atomic bomb as an extremely small dose of a bomb? In actual fact, there is a power, a very real power, in having atoms smash against each other.

Homeopathic medicines are made through a specific pharmacological process of dilution and vigorous shaking. However, when skeptics say that there is nothing but water in homeopathic medicine, they are proving their ignorance, despite the incredible arrogance in which they make these assertions. Dr. Martin Chaplin, a respected British professor who is one of the world’s experts on water, has verified that “homeopathic water” and “regular water” are not the same, and his review of almost 2,000 references to the scientific literature on water (!) confirm this fact (Chaplin, 2009).

It should be noted that a large number of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies are made in doses with known physiological doses. In fact, there are several thousand (!) studies in conventional scientific journals showing a wide variety of biological effects from extremely small doses of various substances on specific systems.

Homeopathic medicines can and should be considered to be a type of “nanopharmacology” (Ullman, 2006). Although the word “nano” also means one-billionth of a size, that is not its only definition. In fact, “nano” derives from the word “dwarf,” and “nano” is the only word in the English language that is used on common parlance as denoting extremely small AND yet extremely powerful. Homeopathic medicines are both extremely small in dose and yet extremely powerful in their therapeutic effect.

For 200 years now, millions of physicians and hundreds of millions of homeopathic patients have observed and experienced the power and effectiveness of homeopathic medicines

The Power of Nano-doses

Precisely how homeopathic medicines work remains a mystery, and yet, nature is replete with mysteries and with numerous striking examples of the power of extremely small doses.

For instance, it is commonly known that a certain species of moth can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles away. It is no simple coincidence that species only sense pheromones from those in the same species who emit them (akin to the homeopathic principle of similars), as though they have developed exquisite and specific receptor sites for what they need to propagate their species. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at distances, and when one considers the volume of water in the ocean, it becomes obvious that sharks, like all living creatures, develop extreme hypersensitivity for whatever will help ensure their survival.

That living organisms have some truly remarkable sensitivities is no controversy. The challenging question that remains is: How does the medicine become imprinted into the water and how does the homeopathic process of dilution with succussion increase the medicine’s power? Although we do not know precisely the answer to this question, some new research may help point the way.

The newest and most intriguing way to explain how homeopathic medicines may work derives from some sophisticated modern technology. Scientists at several universities and hospitals in France and Belgium have discovered that the vigorous shaking of the water in glass bottles causes extremely small amounts of silica fragments or chips to fall into the water (Demangeat, et al., 2004). Perhaps these silica chips may help to store the information in the water, with each medicine that is initially placed in the water creating its own pharmacological effect. In any case, each medicinal substance will interact with the silica fragments in its own idiosyncratic way, thereby changing the nature and structure of water accordingly.

Further, the micro-bubbles and the nano-bubbles that are caused by the shaking may burst and thereby produce microenvironments of higher temperature and pressure. Several studies by chemists and physicists have revealed increased release of heat from water in which homeopathic medicines are prepared, even when the repeated process of dilutions should suggest that there are no molecules remaining of the original medicinal substance (Elia and Niccoli, 1999; Elia, et al., 2004; Rey, 2003).

Also, a group of highly respected scientists have confirmed that the vigorous shaking involved with making homeopathic medicines changes the pressure in the water, akin to water being at 10,000 feet in altitude (Roy, et al., 2005). These scientists have shown how the homeopathic process of using double-distilled water and then diluting and shaking the medicine in a sequential fashion changes the structure of water.
One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low-frequency radio wave. The radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long!

If one considers that the human body is 70-80 percent water, perhaps the best way to provide pharmacological information to the body and into intercellular fluids is with nanodoses. Like the extremely low-frequency radio waves, it may be necessary to use extremely low (and activated) doses for a person to receive the medicinal effect.

It is important to understand that nanopharmacological doses will not have any effect unless the person is hypersensitive to the specific medicinal substance. Hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person. Because the system of homeopathy bases its selection of the medicine on its ability to cause in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing, homeopathy’s principle of similars is simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive.

The homeopathic principle of similars makes further sense when one considers that modern physiologists and pathologists recognize that disease is not simply the result of breakdown or surrender of the body but that symptoms are instead representative of the body’s efforts to fight infection or adapt to stress.

Using a nanodose that is able to penetrate deeply into the body and that is specifically chosen for its ability to mimic the symptoms helps to initiate a profound healing process. It is also important to highlight the fact that a homeopathic medicine is not simply chosen for its ability to cause a similar disease but for its ability to cause a similar syndrome of symptoms of disease, of which the specific localized disease is a part. By understanding that the human body is a complex organism that creates a wide variety of physical and psychological symptoms, homeopaths acknowledge biological complexity and have a system of treatment to address it effectively.

Although no one knows precisely how homeopathic medicines initiate the healing process, we have more than 200 years of evidence from hundreds of thousands of clinicians and tens of millions of patients that these medicines have powerful effects. One cannot help but anticipate the veritable treasure trove of knowledge that further research in homeopathy and nanopharmacology will bring.

Nobel Prize-winning Scientist on Homeopathy…

Brian Josephson, Ph.D., (1940-) is a British physicist who won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 for work he completed when he was only 22 years old. He is currently a professor at the University of Cambridge where he is the head of the mind-matter unification project in the Theory of Condensed Matter research group.
Responding to an article in the New Scientist (October 18, 1997) that expressed skepticism about homeopathy, Josephson wrote:

Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy: criticisms centered around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water’s structure.

Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.

A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste’s colleague Yolène Thomas and by others to be well established experimentally, known as “memory of water”. If valid, this would be of greater significance than homeopathy itself, and it attests to the limited vision of the modern scientific community that, far from hastening to test such claims, the only response has been to dismiss them out of hand. (Josephson, 1997)

Later, when Josephson was interviewed by the New Scientist (December 9, 2006), he chose to emphasize that many scientists today suffer from “pathological disbelief”; that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement “even if it were true I wouldn’t believe it.” Sadly, such scientists are simply showing evidence of an unscientific attitude.

Quantum Medicine

Quantum physics does not disprove Newtonian physics; quantum physics simply extends our understanding of extremely small and extremely large systems. Likewise, homeopathy does not disprove conventional pharmacology; instead, it extends our understanding of extremely small doses of medicinal agents. It is time that physicians and scientists began incorporating both Newtonian and quantum physics into a better understanding of what healing is and how to best augment it.

The founder of homeopathic medicine, Samuel Hahnemann, MD, rewrote and updated his seminal work on the subject five times in his lifetime, each time refining his observations. Homeopaths continue to refine this system of nanopharmacology. While there is not always agreement on the best ways to select the correct remedy or the best nanopharmacological dose to use, the system of homeopathic medicine provides a solid foundation from which clinicians and researchers exploring nanopharmacologies can and should explore.

Dana Ullman, MPH, is America’s leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com. He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.

References:

Chaplin, Martin. 2009 (updated regularly) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index2.html

Demangeat, J.-L., Gries, P., Poitevin, B., Droesbeke J.-J., Zahaf, T., Maton, F., Pierart, C., and Muller, R. N. Low-Field NMR Water Proton Longitudinal Relaxation in Ultrahighly Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Silica-Lactose Prepared in Glass Material for Pharmaceutical Use, Applied Magnetic Resonance, 2004, 26:465-481.

Elia, V. and Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1999, 879:241-248.

Elia, V., Baiano, S., Duro, I., Napoli, E., Niccoli, M., and Nonatelli, L. Permanent Physio-chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Homeopathic Medicines, Homeopathy, 2004, 93:144-150.

Josephson, B. D., Letter, New Scientist, November 1, 1997.

Rey, L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 2003, 323:67-74.

Roy, R., Tiller, W. A., Bell, I., and Hoover, M. R. The Structure of Liquid Water: Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance to Homeopathy, Materials Research Innovations, December 2005, 9(4):577-608..

Ullman, Dana. “Let’s have a serious discussion of nanopharmacology and homeopathy”. FASEB. 2006;20:2661.

The word “allergy” did not even exist a century ago, and yet, respiratory allergies today are the 5th leading chronic disease in the U.S. and are the 3rd most common chronic disease among children under 18 years old. [1] It has been estimated that one in seven Americans had a respiratory allergy in 1950, but one in four have one now.

To those of us who do not believe in coincidences, it is not surprising that my father was a physician who specialized in allergy.  Allergy is the medical specialty that commonly uses small doses of an allergen in order to desensitize a person to that allergen.  This concept of using small doses of what might cause a problem in order to help prevent or heal the person is an ancient observation of healers/physicians all over the world, and it is the basis for a type of natural medicine called homeopathy.

It is therefore not surprising that one of the three physicians who founded the American Acade­my of Allergy was a San Francisco homeopathic physician, Dr. Grant L. Selfridge. [2] Another small and forgotten footnote in medical history involves a homeopathic physician from Scotland, C.H. Blackley, who in 1871 was the first physician to identify pollen as the cause of hay fever. [3]

Although homeopaths have a history of being at the forefront of medical research and discovery, it is particularly appropriate and even predictable that they would lead the way in the field of allergy. Because the primary principle of modern allergy treatment derives from the homeopathic principle of “treating like with like,” the spirit of homeopathy has lived on, despite the tendency of orthodox physicians to ignore it.

Research in Leading Medical Journals

Respiratory allergies represent the condition for which there is a relatively strong research base for efficacious treatment with homeopathic medicines. A group of researchers at the University of Glasgow published four studies, three of which were published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and the Lancet, two highly respected medical journals. Each study was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Each trial used an oral 30C homeopathic preparation. The first two trials involved patients with hay fever, [4] [5] where patients were either given a placebo or homeopathic doses of 12 common flowers to which people are allergic.

The third trial involved patients with asthma, where patients underwent conventional allergy testing to determine to what substance they were most allergic. [6] Half of the patients were given a placebo and half were given a homeopathic dose of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common allergen was “house dust mite” and thus, these patients were given House Dust Mite 30C).

The fourth study was the treatment of patients suffering with perennial allergic rhinitis (a broad technical term for respiratory allergies that are not seasonal). [7] Like the previous study, half of the patients were given a placebo, while the other half was given a homeopathic dose of whatever substance the person was most allergic. The patients given the homeopathic medicine experienced significant improvement in nasal inspiratory flow comparable with the improvement typically experienced by patients given steroidal drugs…without side effects!

When evaluating all four trials together (there were 253 patients in all of their clinical trials), there was a 28 percent improvement in homeopathic subjects versus a 3 percent improvement in placebo subjects.
Following in the footsteps of the above research, a 4-week, double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic preparations with placebo was conducted in the Phoenix metropolitan area during the regional allergy season from February to May. [8] The treatment group was given a homeopathic preparation (6X) of common allergens in the Southwest region of the U.S. Participants included 40 men and women, 26-63 years of age, diagnosed with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms.

In addition to the above research, a group of German researchers conducted annual controlled clinical trials using a single homeopathic medicine (Galphima glauca) on over 1,000 hay fever subjects. The last six clinical trials were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. These studies consistently showed benefits from this homeopathic treatment as compared with those patients given a placebo. [9]

It should be acknowledged that not all research has confirmed success in the treatment of respiratory allergies using homeopathic medicines.  For instance, one study tested homeopathic doses of birch trees to treat people with birch tree allergies, but such treatment was not any more effective than a placebo. [10]

Specific Treatment Options

What this research suggests is that homeopathic medicines provide an often effective and extremely safe means of treatment for patients with respiratory allergies.  Further, due to the widely recognized safety of homeopathic medicines, it makes sense to consider safe methods before resorting to more risky treatments.  There are specific treatment options using homeopathic medicines that people can consider:

1. Follow the studies of the Glasgow researchers and use conventional allergy testing to determine to what you are allergic and then take the 30C dose of this substance  (these products are available through select homeopathic pharmacies).
2. Two of the Glasgow studies involved subjects with hay fever, and these studies used a combination homeopathic medicine that included flowers to which the patients were allergic. People might consider prescribing a homeopathic medicine that contains many of the common flowers to which the hay fever subject is sensitive (most health food stores have homeopathic combination remedies that include such ingredients).
3. People with hay fever could consider taking Galphimia glauca 3X, 4X, 4C, or 6C as long as hay fever symptoms persist, or use a homeopathic combination remedy in which this remedy is an ingredient.
4. People with allergies could consider prescribing an individualized single homeopathic medicine as recommended in various homeopathic acute care guidebooks. [11] Individualizing a homeopathic medicine to a specific person and his/her unique syndrome of symptoms is the preferred method of “classical homeopathy” and has a long-time history of significant success.

   Generally, these treatment options provide safe and effective care for patients suffering from respiratory allergies, but it is uncertain how long-term the therapeutic benefits will last. It may be necessary to refer the patient to a professional homeopath who will prescribe a homeopathic constitutional medicine that is, a remedy that is highly individualized to the patient genetic makeup, personal health history, and totality of physical and psychological symptoms. Clinical experience commonly observes more long-term results.

   Skeptics commonly assert that homeopathic medicines comprise of too small of a dose to have any effect, and yet, there have been 200+ clinical trials that have evaluated homeopathic treatment, most of which found positive results from homeopathic medicines. Although it is not presently known with certainty how homeopathic medicines work, conventional medicine has a long history of using treatments for which they didn’t understand but that worked anyway.

   Future blogs will discuss more clinical research, some modern theories about how and why homeopathic medicines work. I also plan to discuss why so many of the most respected cultural heroes since the early 19th century have used and/or advocated for homeopathy, including 11 U.S. Presidents, two British Prime Ministers, six Popes, and many of the most respected physicians, scientists, literary greats, corporate leaders, heads of state, sports superstars, musical and artistic geniuses, women’s rights leaders, and clergy of the past 200 years.

REFERENCES:

[1] Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America
[2] Cohen SG. The American Academy of Allergy: a historical review. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1979;64: 332-333.
[3] Reilly D, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopath­ic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet October 18, 1986; ii: 881-886.
[4] Reilly, DT, Taylor, MA, Potent placebo or potency? A proposed study model with initial findings using homoeopathically prepared pollens in hayfever, British Homoeopathic Journal 1985,74:65-75.
[5] Reilly D, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopath­ic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet October 18, 1986; ii: 881-886.
[6] Reilly, DT, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, et al, Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994,344:1601-1606.
[7] Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones H, McSharry C, Aitchison TC, Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series, BMJ August 19, 2000,321:471-476.
[8] Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters RF.  Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis using homeopathic preparation of common allergens in the southwest region of the US: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.  Ann Pharmacother. 2005 Apr;39(4):617-24.
[9] Wiesenauer M, Ludtke R, “A Meta-analysis of the Homeopathic Treatment of Pollinosis with Galphimia glauca,” Forsch Komplementarmed., 3(1996):230-234.
[10] Aabel S. Prophylactic and acute treatment with the homeopathic medicine Betula 30C for birch pollen allergy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of consistency of VAS responses. Br Homeopath J 2001;90:73-78. 
[11] Cummings S, Ullman D, Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicine, New York: JP Tarcher/Putnam, 2004.
Dana Ullman, MPH, is America’s leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of Homeopathic.com He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody’s Guide To Homeopathic Medicines His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose. Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.

“Respecting the body’s intelligence”

Have you ever wondered what is that stuff coming out of your nose when you have a common cold? Such nasal discharges are composed of dead viruses that were killed by the body’s defenses, dead white blood cells that were killed as a result of the infection, and a liquid substance known as mucus which the body deploys as a vehicle to remove this dead matter.

If you take a conventional over-the-counter drug for the common cold, these drugs “work” by reducing the body’s ability to create mucus, which simply inhibits the body’s own efforts to eliminate the dead viruses from the body. Although these conventional drugs may stop the nasal discharge temporarily, the side effects of these drugs are that they lead to bronchial congestion, headache, and fatigue, which can be more problematic and discomforting symptoms than the original simple nasal discharge.

The lesson here is that just because a drug is effective in getting rid of a symptom does not necessarily mean that this treatment is truly curative (or even helpful).

Wisdom of the Body:
“Human body has an inherent wisdom that strives to defend itself and to survive”

The basic assumption behind the broad field of natural medicine is that the human body has an inherent wisdom within it that strives to defend itself and to survive. Symptoms of illness are not simply something “wrong” with the person, but instead, symptoms are actually responses and efforts of the organism to defend and heal itself against infection and/or stress. Hans Selye, MD, PhD, the father of stress theory, once asserted, “Disease is not mere surrender to attack but also the fight for health; unless there is a fight, there is no disease.”

Our human body has survived these thousands of years because of its incredible adaptive capabilities, and one of the ways that it adapts is through the creation of symptoms. Whether it be through fever and inflammation, cough and expectoration, nausea and vomiting, fainting and comatose states, and even the variety of emotional and mental states, each symptom represents the best efforts of the bodymind to fight infection and/or adapt to physical and psychological stresses.

Although symptoms may be the best effort of the organism to defend itself at that time, it is not usually effective to simply let the body try to heal itself. Most often, some treatment must be provided to help nurture, nourish, and augment the body’s own wisdom. The challenge to physicians, healers, and patients is to determine when to help aid this inner wisdom of the body and when to intervene to make certain that the body does not harm itself.

“A symptom is a signal, a warning light that something is off-balance”.

The word “symptom” comes from a Greek root and refers to “something that falls together with something else.” Symptoms are a sign or signal of something else, and treating them doesn’t necessarily change that “something else.” Ultimately, a symptom is a signal, a warning light that something is off-balance. It is akin to an oil warning light in your car. Although this light will go off if you unscrew the lamp, this simple action doesn’t solve the more complex problem that led to the light turning on in the first place.

In 1942 Walter B. Cannon, a medical doctor, wrote a seminal book entitled The Wisdom of the Body. This book, which is a classic in medicine, detailed the impressive and sophisticated efforts that the body deploys to defend and heal itself.

Many leading scientists, including the late Dr. Hans Selye, have taken Cannon’s work further, recognizing that symptoms are actually efforts of the organism to deal with stress or infection. And even more recently, Randolph Nesse, MD, and George Williams, PhD, authored Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine (New York: Times, 1995) in which they link the important role that symptoms and disease have to the evolution of the human body. Nesse and Williams show how our symptoms and seemingly normal body functions work as important defenses:

• Fever is an important, even vital, defense against infection.
• Tears help wash and cleanse the eyes.
• The respiratory system is bathed in antibody and enzyme-rich secretions that are propelled up and down the throat and bronchial tree so that invaders are killed.
• The ears secrete an antibacterial wax which helps to fight infection.
• The frequent washing of the mouth with saliva kills some pathogens and dislodges others so that the stomach’s acid and enzymes can destroy them.

Without having to tell the bodymind what to do, our innate survival instinct has developed sophisticated responses to both old and new infections and stresses.

Concepts in new physics offer further support for the notion that living and non-living systems have inherent self-regulating, self-organizing, and self-healing capacities. This ongoing effort to maintain homeostasis (balance) and to develop higher and higher levels of order and stability have been described in detail by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ilya Prigogine in Order Out of Chaos, Fritjof Capra in The Turning Point, and Erich Jantsch in The Self-Organizing Universe. In systems thinking, “perturbations” are understood as efforts of a system to re-establish balance and to increase its complexity so that there is greater dynamic homeostasis.

Why Homeopathic Medicines Make Sense:
“Honor the wisdom of the body”

The implications of recognizing that symptoms are efforts of the body to defend itself are significant. Because some conventional drugs work by suppressing symptoms, these drugs tend to provide helpful temporarily relief but tend to lead other new and more serious problems by inhibiting the body’s defense and immune processes. Such drugs should be avoided except in dire situations or in extreme pain or discomfort when safer treatments are not working fast or adequately enough.

Because symptoms are adaptations of the body in its efforts to defend and heal itself, it makes sense to use treatments that mimic this wisdom of the body. Ultimately, homeopathic medicine is a well-known therapeutic modality that honors this wisdom of the body. Homeopathy is a type of “medical biomimicry” that uses various plant, mineral, and animal substances based upon their ability to cause in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing.

It may be no coincidence that two of the very few conventional medical treatments that augment the body’s own immune system are immunizations and allergy treatments, and these drug treatment modalities “coincidentally” derive from the homeopathic principle of similar (treating “like with like”). (Note: A future blog will feature descriptions of and references to clinical and basic sciences research that verify the efficacy and biological activity of homeopathic medicines.)

“Initiate a true healing beyond just symptomatic relief”

By using a medicine that causes similar symptoms as those of the sick person, the medicine is akin to being a “medical aikido” (the martial art that seeks to match and mimic the force of the attacker against the attacker).

It is not surprising that so many Eastern spiritual teachers have been trained in homeopathy or have simply become advocates for it. Swami Satchidananda and Swami Rama were formally trained in homeopathy, while Sri Aurobindo, Meher Baba, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Yogai Bhajan, Swami Muktananda, and Sri Chinmoy have been known to seek homeopathic care or advocate for it. The fact that many of these spiritual teachers also believe that life problems are not really “problems” but are opportunities for learning is part and parcel of the idea that symptoms are defenses in the body’s efforts to learn how to adapt to the world around us.

The Latin words, vis medicatrix naturae,” make reference to “the healing power of nature,” and these words and concepts form the basis for naturopathic medicine. Despite maintaining a healthy respect for the healing power of nature, neither naturopaths nor homeopaths think that it is effective to just let the body heal itself. Usually, it is necessary to give the body specific tools/treatments that help in this healing process. Homeopathy and other natural medicines that nourish and nurture the body’s own wisdom are good first steps to initiate a true healing beyond just symptomatic relief.
And when you consider that the most famous words from Hippocrates were, “First, do no harm.” It seems that Hippocrates was instructing us all to first try safer methods before resorting to the big guns of more dangerous conventional medical methodologies.

Anyone who has taken a painkiller certainly knows that there is a big difference between temporary relief and real healing.  Even though a person who takes a painkiller may not consciously feel pain, it is widely understood that this relief does not necessarily mean that a “cure” or a “healing” has occurred.

And yet, it is surprising how many people think that various conventional drugs have performed some type of miracle just because they provided short-term relief of pain or discomfort.  Little do many people know that when a drug “works,” this may be the “bad news.” It may be that the drug works by suppressing the disease, thereby creating a much more serious physical and/or mental disease.

Although antibiotics and select other drugs may be an exception to this general observation, getting rid of an infection will not influence the immune factors that led the person to be susceptible to infection in the first place, and in fact, antibiotics are known to disrupt one’s inner ecology, disturb assimilation of nutrients, and even tend to make the person more susceptible to new infection (a future blog will deal more directly with this issue).

Painkillers, on the other hand, may provide great reduction in pain, but this may result in the person continuing to walk on that injured ankle and cause increased injury.  The person with arthritis, as another example, may continually take one or more painkilling drugs that provide some relief but these drugs also create their own tolerance, addiction, or pathology, usually leading to much more serious health problems.

A smart person might consider taking a conventional drug that provides temporary blessed relief while concurrently seeking some more deep treatment that nourishes, nurtures, or augments the body’s own defenses.  A problem, however, is created when a sick person frequently relies upon a drug to provide temporary relief and does not seek a real, more profound healing.

Differentiating Real Healing from Suppression of Disease

When a person experiences relief from any treatment, conventional or alternative, one should not necessarily assume that a real healing has occurred.  While it is possible that the person may really have been healed, it may also mean:

• the symptoms went away on their own, and the treatment had nothing to do with it.
• the treatment palliated the symptoms, providing short-term relief but resulted in the recurrence of symptoms in the near future.
• the treatment “worked” by suppressed the person’s symptoms or his/her own immune and defense system, thereby pushing the disease deeper into body. Although suppression of symptoms may cause them to disappear, they tend to be replaced, sooner or later, with more serious, deeper symptoms that are more discomforting and potentially dangerous.

Homeopaths and naturopaths both assert that there is a big difference between real healing, palliation of symptoms, and suppression of disease, even though each of these results may initially seem to be the same.

What people don’t usually understand is that there may be a danger in the frequent or recurrent application of treatments that suppress symptoms.  The concept of suppressing symptoms is well accepted and understood in psychology.  It is commonly observed when a person suppresses his or her emotions, such actions tend to push the emotional turmoil deeper, leading the person to explode at some future time, often at people who are not directly related to the origin of the person’s problem.

While people may be familiar with the problems associated with the suppression of emotions, people are generally not familiar with the possibility that many conventional medical treatments can suppress their physical symptoms, driving the disease deeper into the person. And yet, suppression of disease is so commonplace in today’s medical treatment that it is virtually ignored.

Doctors and drug companies tend to minimize the real problems of suppressing the disease process by referring to the “side effects” of a drug.  And yet, pharmacologists commonly note that the determining a drug’s “effects” and its “side effects” are completely arbitrary.  They are both the direct effect of the drug upon the human body.

Ironically, many conventional drugs are touted specifically for their ability to “suppress” symptoms…or even suppress the body’s own immune system.  Ultimately, pushing the disease deeper into the person is the result of using pharmacological agents that are explicitly prescribed for their ability to control or inhibit symptoms that are the natural defensive functions of the body.  Suppression of disease may provide the semblance of benefit (or at least short-term benefit), but ultimately may make the person much sicker.  Such suppression of the disease process may lead to increased chronic disease, immune dysfunction, and mental illness, all of which we are seeing together in epidemic proportions.

Understanding the Healing Process from a Whole Systems Perspective

The father of American homeopathy was a German physician named Constantine Hering, MD (1800-1880).  Hering was a respected conventional physician who was hired by a publisher to write a book critical of homeopathy, and in his research on the topic, he became convinced of its efficacy.  After many years of practicing homeopathy, he observed that people go through a specific healing process after being given the correct homeopathic medicine. He developed guidelines in which to determine when a real healing is taking place. These guidelines have been called “Hering’s laws of cure,” but some homeopaths prefer to call them “Hering’s guidelines of cure.”

To understand these guidelines, it is first useful to know that homeopaths carefully evaluate the evolution of a person’s physical, emotional, and mental/spiritual symptoms.  Homeopaths consider mental/spiritual symptoms to be deepest to the core of a person’s being for they represent the will, the ego, the sense of security that the person feels, and the person’s overall state of consciousness.  Homeopaths today wonder if the immune system’s important ability to identify “self” from “non-self” is dynamically connected to a person’s mental/spiritual state of health, thereby linking mind and body health.  The emotional symptoms are external to the mental/spiritual level of the person because imbalances in the deeper level will create increased propensities to various fears, angers, depressive states, and other emotions. The physical symptoms are the most outer manifestation of the person, though every level can and will influence the other.

Also, each level has certain symptoms that have more or less influence on a person’s overall health.  For instance, a person’s asthma will be deeper than his or her skin rash, a person’s fear of death will be deeper than his or her irritability, and a person’s loss of self esteem will be deeper than a subtle reduction in memory. Likewise, when comparing symptoms on different levels, a person’s heart disease will more profoundly affect his or her health than a difficulty in concentration experienced on the mental/spiritual level.

In light of these levels of the human being and the degrees of intensity to which a symptom impairs a person’s ability to live, Hering found that healing progresses:

· From within to without (from the deepest part of our being to the most external);

· From the most recent disease back in time to previous ones (a reversion of the disease process);

· From the top of the body to the bottom of the body.

Ultimately, basic concepts of survival and evolution are at the heart of this understanding of the defenses of the body.  The human body can and will defend its most vital functions first before defending its more superficial functions.

Homeopaths observe that a truly effective therapy sometimes elicits a temporary exacerbation of certain symptoms, usually in the superficial ones or sometimes ones that the person had many years previously. Homeopaths assert that a true healing is taking place when a person’s present symptoms are more superficial than previous ones.  One of the reasons that homeopaths and their patients have come to believe that homeopathic medicines are not simply placeboes is their observations that some symptoms tend to increase in the process of a curative response (healing from within to without…and the above other guidelines).

This “externalization” of symptoms is commonly observed by homeopaths who witness that approximately 20-30 percent of their patients with a chronic illness tend to experience skin symptoms, nasal or bronchial discharges, diarrhea, early menstruation with clots, profuse perspiration, or some other externalization of the disease process after an effective homeopathic treatment is provided.

On the other hand, if and when a person takes a conventional drug and his or her symptoms disappear but new ones that are more serious develop, this result suggests that the treatment has suppressed the person’s condition and has made them worse. Unknown to most physicians and patients, people undergoing conventional medical treatment are commonly having their disease suppressed. Homeopaths assert that one of the reasons that there is increased mental disease and increased chronic disease at earlier and earlier ages is because of effective suppression of the disease process by conventional medical treatment.

Distinct from methods that suppress disease are those that help disease express and externalize itself.  Homeopathy’s use of the principle of similars (using medicines bases on their ability to CAUSE the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing) is one important safeguard against disease suppression because it mimics the wisdom of the body rather than suppresses its symptoms.

I like to call homeopathy a type of “medical biomimicry” because a homeopathic medicine is chosen for its ability to mimic the symptoms that the sick person is experiencing.  Because there is a certain wisdom to the bodymind, mimicking this wisdom is a good way to elicit a real healing.

Here is a great piece that my colleague and friend and guest author for the website, Dana Ullman MPH has written. Dana is “homeopathic.com” and has authored 9 books on the subject. His newest book is The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (North Atlantic, 2007).

Our military thinking and our medical thinking have surprisingly much in common. It is not just happenstance that doctors proudly assert that they seek to attack illness, combat disease, kill infective agents, and create a war on cancer or on any disease. Physicians seem so stuck in this medical mindset of militaristic thinking that it is not surprising that they have a long history of attacking other viable strategies that seem to be less medical or less militaristic.

In order to treat a patient, the doctor must provide a diagnosis that determines the existence of a “Western medical disease” (what might be called a WMD), even if this diagnosis is sometimes based on faulty medical intelligence or just selective intelligence.

Doctors usually choose to “shock and awe” the body. An elaborate attack ensues utilizing our most sophisticated technological armamentarium, including the newest painkilling drugs, antibiotics, and chemotherapeutic agents. This militaristic medical solution takes precedence over other strategies that strive to re-establish health through a coalition of forces in order to augment the body’s own defenses. While a minority of doctors voice dissident opinions and propose less invasive treatment strategies, these voices are muted by the medical industrial complex.

The military industrial complex is but a dwarf next to its medical counterpart. In 2002, for instance, the combined profits for the ten largest drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the combined profits for all of the remaining 490 companies ($33.7 billion). Even though Big Pharma couldn’t maintain this same dominating margin in 2003, due to Big Oil getting a shot in the arm in profits from a significant increase in the cost of this commodity, the medical industrial complex is ready, willing, and able to declare a scientifically validated victory, even if this victory is temporary or simply provides symptomatic relief.

In fact, the shock and awe treatment “works” so that doctors proudly declare: “Mission Accomplished.”

However, much to our surprise, but obvious and predictable to many others, thousands of new “terrorist cells” are created. The shock and awe use of drugs create their own side effects. The painkilling drugs kill the pain but do not cure the underlying disease and create their own tolerance, addiction, and pathology. Antibiotics kill the bad germs but also destroy the good bacteria in our gut that are so important for digesting and assimilating our food. And the chemotherapeutic drugs poison and ravage the immune system, creating a perfect environment for new organisms to infect an increasingly weakened and susceptible body.

However, side effects are not really “side” effects at all. From a pharmacological point of view, determining which “effects” a drug has and which are its “side effects” are arbitrarily determined. Does a bomb that destroys buildings and kills people have one or the other as a “side effect?” Both are the direct effect of the bomb.

Likewise, drugs may effectively suppress a symptom, but the cough we have is the way that the body was trying to clear its bronchial passageway so that you can breath, and our fever is a vital innate strategy that the body deploys to burn out infective organisms. Although the drugs provide helpful temporary relief (and bless them for that), they also tend to suppress the body’s own self-healing propensities and disrupt our inner ecology. Side effects and collateral damage are simply accepted as the price of our war on disease, even if varied strategies for creating the peace are inadequately explored.

Doctors may even be able to go the next step and surgically remove a symptom or an obstructive agent, but the assumption that removing a single symptom or pathological agent will create health is both simplistic and incorrect. Getting rid of a symptom, simply toppling a statue of the person, or capturing a political leader doesn’t create a cure or a revolution. As it turns out, conventional medicine often has no real tools with which to deal with the more complex problems at play…or simply has no plan to establish health once one symptom is removed.

The nursery rhyme about the fall of Humpty Dumpty may provide important insights. This old verse acknowledges, “All my King’s horses and all my King’s men cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.” Despite this unsuccessful effort, no one recommend the requisition of more horses and more men to solve this problem.

Our medical generals, however, have not been as insightful, and instead a “surge” in military efforts has been prescribed. Typically, solutions to health problems have been the call for more doctors (and more specialists), more drugs (newer and more expensive ones), and more surgery (after all, medical insurance and the increasing national debt will cover it). And if and when critics assert otherwise, they are branded as unpatriotic…or worse, as unscientific. It is as though we are living under a “doctatorship.”

But now that the body is seriously ravaged, we are told that we cannot just leave the body on its own. Physicians assert that it is essential that we be there to defend it against new attacks, even if our very presence creates the new increasingly more dramatic terrorist actions, a situation is akin to the increased risk of exposure to virulent strains of infection from hospitals today.

Strategies that nourish or nurture the body’s wisdom, treatments that stimulate or augment our inner doctor, and therapeutic modalities that help to establish a dynamic balance between the body-mind-nature are simply called quackery. This name-calling is a wonderfully clever way to trivialize something potentially useful and important. And ironically, physicians often attack these alternative healing systems even though they have an inadequate understanding of what they really are, what history of use and efficacy that they been shown to have, or the high satisfaction rate that exists for their use by the public. The fact that physicians maintain such an unscientific attitude towards these alternative, complementary, and integrative treatment modalities is part and parcel of our “my country right or wrong” and “our medical care right or wrong” thinking.

It is now time to acknowledge and understand how much military thinking has invaded and occupied our medical thinking. And more important, it is time to explore new thinking to medical and military problems so that we can create greater health and peace.