Misplaced Pages

Homeopathy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:07, 14 July 2007 view sourceFilll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 edits →European Journal of Cancer 2006 study← Previous edit Revision as of 14:31, 14 July 2007 view source Filll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 edits →Critical: I believe that this category is appropriate and accurate and will make the article easier to find. comments?Next edit →
Line 246: Line 246:
] ]
] ]
]


] ]

Revision as of 14:31, 14 July 2007

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words όμοιος, hómoios (similar) and πάθος, páthos (suffering), is a controversial subset of alternative medicine practices that aims to treat "like with like." The term "homeopathy" was coined by the German physician Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first appeared in print in 1807, although he began outlining his theories of 'medical similars' in a series of articles and monographs in 1796. Hahnemann's main opus was the book, The Organon of Medicine. Hahnemann published six editions of this work between 1810 and 1842.

Homeopathic treatment involves giving a patient with symptoms of an illness extremely small doses of substances that produce the same illness symptoms in healthy people when given in larger doses. A homeopathic remedy is prepared by diluting the substance in a series of steps. Many homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted that no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain after dilution. Homeopathy asserts that the remedy will retain a memory of the diluted substance and the therapeutic potency of a remedy can be increased by serial dilution combined with succussion, or vigorous shaking. Homeopathy regards diseases as morbid derangements of the organism, and states that instances of disease in different people differ fundamentally. Homeopathy views a sick person as having a dynamic disturbance in a hypothetical "vital force", a disturbance which, homeopaths claim, underlies standard medical diagnoses of named diseases.

The attitudes towards homeopathy vary around the world. Homeopathy is particularly popular in Europe and India, although less so in the USA,. Stricter European regulations have also been implemented recently by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare.

Since its inception homeopathy has received criticism on scientific and medical grounds, and no scientific studies have conclusively shown its efficacy. The belief that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers" is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics and the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. Critics of homeopathy frequently describe it as pseudoscience and quackery. Results of clinical trials of homeopathic remedies are almost all negative, and those showing positive results are found to have methodological problems. Results from well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials with large populations have always been negative. Several examples of publications in high ranking journals that were later withdrawn are known. Additionally, the use of homeopathic drugs to prevent malaria infection has had life-threatening consequences.


Part of a series on
Alternative medicine
General information
Fringe medicine and science
Controversies
Classifications
Traditional medicine
Alternative diagnoses

The standard practice of homeopathy

See also: Homeopathic techniques and History of homeopathy

Law of similars

Homeopathy is based on the 'principle of similars', first expressed by Hahnemann as similia similibus curentur or 'let likes cure likes'. This is opposite to the 'principle of contraries' which was central to the Galenic medicine of his day and in which Hahnemann had been trained.

The 'law of similars' is an ancient medical maxim, but its modern form is based on Hahnemann's hypothesis that a constellation of symptoms induced by a given homeopathic remedy in a group of healthy individuals will cure a similar set of symptoms in the sick. Symptom patterns associated with various remedies are determined by 'provings', in which healthy volunteers are given remedies, of varying concentrations, and the resulting physical and mental symptoms are compiled by observers into a "drug picture".

The 'law of similars' is the guiding principle behind homeopathic treatments. Homeopathic practitioners rely on two types of reference in prescribing, both of which are created using the 'law of similars'. The Homeopathic Materia Medicae are alphabetical indexes of drug pictures organized by remedy, which describe the symptom patterns associated with individual remedies. Also, a 'homeopathic repertory' consists of an index of sickness symptoms, listing all the remedies associated with specific symptoms.

The law of similars is more of a guiding principle than a scientific law. It is not built on a hypothesis that can be falsified. A failure to cure homeopathically can always be attributed to incorrect selection of a remedy:

"I have often heard physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with my wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy". --James Tyler Kent.

Types of remedies

Hahnemann tested many substances commonly used as medicines in his time, such as antimony and rhubarb, and also poisons like arsenic, mercury and belladonna, to discover what symptoms they produced in healthy individuals. Hahnemann recorded his first 'provings' of 27 preparations in his book Fragmenta de viribus in 1805. Later, Hahnemann published Materia Medica Pura, which contained provings of a further 65 preparations. He was most heavily engaged in proving in the 1790s and early 1800s, but he never abandoned these experiments. Hahnemann was involved in another phase of proving in preparation for the publication of his book, "The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure",. The Chronic Diseases were published in 1828 and contained provings of 48 further preparations.

James Kent's Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (1905) lists 217 remedies, and new substances are continually added to contemporary versions. Homeopathy uses many animal, plant, mineral, and synthetic substances. Examples include natrum muriaticum (sodium chloride or table salt), lachesis muta (the venom of the bushmaster snake), opium, and thyroidinum (thyroid hormone).

Other homeopathic remedies involve dilution of the agent or product of the disease. These are the so-called "isopathic remedies". Rabies nosode, for example, is made by diluting the saliva of a rabid dog.

Some modern homeopaths are exploring the use of more esoteric substances, known as "imponderables" because they do not originate from a material but from electromagnetic energy or other energy presumed to have been "captured" by a substance like alcohol or lactose. The captured "energy" can be in many forms, such as X-rays, Sol (sunlight), Positronium, Electricitas (electricity) or even light collected using a telescope (for example, from the star Polaris). Recent ventures by homeopaths into even more esoteric substances include Tempesta (thunderstorm), and Berlin wall.

Today, about 3000 remedies are used in homeopathy; about 300 are based on comprehensive Homeopathic Materia Medica information, and about 1500 on relatively fragmentary knowledge. The rest are used experimentally in difficult cases based on the law of similars, either without knowledge of their homeopathic properties or through speculative knowledge independent of the law of similars. This modern approach also harks back to the ancient 'doctrine of signatures,' which Hahnemann definitely rejected as uncertain guesswork.

Choosing remedies

There are many methods for determining the most-similar remedy (the simillimum), and homeopaths sometimes disagree. This is partly due to the complexity of the "totality of symptoms" concept. That is, homeopaths do not use all symptoms, but decide which are the most characteristic. This subjective evaluation of case analysis rests crucially on knowledge and experience. Finally, the drug picture in the Homeopathic Materia Medica is always more comprehensive than the symptoms exhibited by any individual. These factors mean that a homeopathic prescription can remain presumptive until it is verified by testing the effect of the remedy on the patient.

Alternative modes of selecting remedies include medical dowsing or the use of psychic powers. However, these methods are controversial and not accepted by most homeopathic practitioners.

Modern efforts to further develop homeopathy

There are many reasons why homeopathic practioners seek to expand the Homeopathic Materia Medica. For example, some are tempted to use an isopathic, or disease-associated agent as a first prescription in a 'stuck' case when the beginning of disease coincides with a specific event such as vaccination. Also, it is common to try a chemically-related substance when a remedy that was well-indicated fails. A good example of this is the use of bowel nosodes, which were introduced by the British homeopaths, Edward Bach (1886-1936), John Paterson (1890-1954) and Charles Edwin Wheeler (1868-1946) in the 1920s. Their use is based on the variable bowel bacterial flora thought to be associated with persons of different homeopathic constitutional types. Though receiving more attention today, the bowel nosodes are rarely used outside British homeopathy.

More recently, homeopathy has embraced substances based on their elemental classification (the periodic table or biological taxonomy). This approach may create convenient systems for grouping remedies and classifying the ever-burgeoning Homeopathic Materia Medica, but its usefulness is questioned by some purists on the basis that it involves speculation about remedy action without provings.

Miasms as a cause of disease

Another important component of homeopathy is the concept of "miasms". Hahnemann hypothesized that certain illnesses leave behind some residual damage, or a miasm (Greek for stain or dyscrasia) which are postulated to be responsible for chronic diseases. These miasms can even be passed on to offspring. There are three types of miasms in homeopathy:

  1. syphilis, resulting in damange to the brain, nerves, and bones, resulting in deafness, insanity, alcholism, etc.
  2. "sycosis", a term used in homeopathy to refer to suppressed gonorrhoea, damaging the mucous membranes and genital tract, producing sensitivity to damp weather and storms
  3. psora, damaging the skin, resulting in many types of internal disease states

Hahneman developed his miasm hypothesis because he was concerned about the failures of his homeopathic remedies to produce lasting cures for chronic diseases. By 1816, Hahnemann had noticed that "...the non-venereal chronic diseases, after being time and again removed homoeopathically … always returned in a more or less varied form and with new symptoms."

To explain this, Hahnemann introduced his miasmatic hypothesis. Hahnemann's miasm theory was first published in 1828 in his book, The Chronic Diseases, their Nature and Homoeopathic Treatment.

Hahnemann hypothesized that the miasm of psora underpinned most of the chronic diseases known to medicine. The word "miasm" is related to an old medical concept known as the "miasma theory of disease", where the term "miasma" represents "pestiferous exhalations". Hahnemann described this in Note 2 to §11 of the Organon: "...a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, … in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property..."

According to Hahnemann, miasmatic infection causes local symptoms, usually in the skin. If these are suppressed by external medication, the hidden cause goes deeper, and manifests itself later as organ pathologies. In §80 of the Organon he asserted psora to be the cause of such diseases as epilepsy, kyphosis, cancer, jaundice, deafness, and cataract.

However, the miasm theory was not widely accepted. Even in his own time, many followers of Hahnemann, including the American homeopathy pioneer Constantine Hering, made almost no reference to Hahnemann’s concept of chronic diseases and the miasm hypothesis. Today, some homeopathic practitioners find Hahnemann’s theory difficult to reconcile with current knowledge of immunology, genetics, microbiology and pathology, as it seems to ignore the importance of genetic, congenital, metabolic, nutritional, and degenerative factors in sickness. The miasm theory also fails to differentiate between the multitude of infectious diseases. However, most insist that the key elements of Hahnemann's miasm theory are valid. For instance, most of them believe that the fundamental cause of disease is internal and constitutional (i.e. the susceptibility to becoming ill), and that it is contrary to good health to suppress symptoms, especially skin eruptions and discharges. They also accept Hahnemann's concept of latent psora, the early signs of an organism’s imbalance, which indicate that treatment is needed to prevent the development of more advanced disease.

Classical versus non-classical homeopathy

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Homeopathy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Hahnemann's formulation of homeopathy is often referred to as classical homeopathy. Classical homeopaths use one remedy at a time, and base their prescription also on incidental or constitutional symptoms. However, homeopathic remedies are often used both by practitioners and by the public based on formulations marketed for specific medical conditions. Some formulations use a 'shotgun' approach of the most commonly indicated single remedies in mixture form, while others, such as those by Heel and Reckeweg, are proprietary mixtures marketed for specific diagnostic criteria based on various systems. Many members of the public are unfamiliar with classical homeopathy, and equate these practices with homeopathy; others are familiar with the classical approach but regard these as legitimate variants; while others consider it a misuse of the term. Use of non-classical approaches is confined mainly to places where over-the-counter preparations are popular and where many doctors use natural medicines in a conventional clinical setting.

Scientific critiques of homeopathic treatment

Early critiques of high dilutions

Sir John Forbes (1787-1861), physician to Queen Victoria (1841-61), said the extremely small doses of homeopathy were regularly derided as useless, laughably ridiculous and "an outrage to human reason." Although such homeopathic cures were accepted as valid by regular physicians at the time, they were ascribed entirely to the body's innate healing powers. And Professor Sir James Young Simpson said of the highly diluted drugs: "no poison, however strong or powerful, the billionth or decillionth of which would in the least degree affect a man or harm a fly.". Nineteenth century American physician and author Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. was a vocal critic of homeopathy and published an essay in 1842 entitled Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions.

British Medical Journal 1991 study

In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.

The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us." They found evidence for successful treatment of respiratory and other infections, diseases of the digestive system, hay fever, rheumatological disease, mental or psychological problems and other ailments. In addition, they found evidence that homeopathic treatment helped patients recover after abdominal surgery and to address pain or trauma.

Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed. Still, researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy.

The meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials."

Lancet 2005 study

In August 2005, The Lancet published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The outcome of this meta-analysis stated that the clinical effects of homeopathy are likely to be placebo effects. The article is notable for its design, as a "global" meta analysis of homeopathy and not as an analysis of particular effects; it scientifically tested the global hypothesis that the reported effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. Any reported positive effects are probably due to placebo effects, publication bias, observer effects, among others; the magnitude of reported effects should diminish with sample size and study quality, and with the best studies there should be consistently no effect, which is the prediction that the study sought to test. For comparison, they subjected an equal set of conventional medicine trials for identical analysis. These were matched for study disease and sample sizes. The prediction was supported by the study - whereas the conventional tests showed a real effect independent of sample size, the homeopathy studies did not. The Lancet accompanied the meta-analysis with invited editorials.

European Journal of Cancer 2006 study

In January 2006 the European Journal of Cancer published a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio- and chemo-therapy. Three of the trials included were randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The authors were from the Departments of Complementary Medicine at the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth. Their analysis found insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic remedies in cancer treatment recovery.

Mechanism of action of homeopathic preparations

Since homeopathic remedies at potencies higher than about D23 (10) contain no detectable ingredients apart from the diluent (water, alcohol or sugar), there is no known chemical/scientific basis for them to have any medicinal action. Some tests suggest that potentized solutions up to D120 can have statistically significant effects on organic processes, including the growth of grain, histamine release by leukocytes, and enzyme reactions. These publications are very controversial since attempts to replicate some of these studies on leukocytes and enzymes have failed, even when using the potentization method. A recent review of tests of high potencies summarized the situation as follows: "...there are some hints from experimental research that homeopathic substances diluted and succussed beyond Avogadro's number are biologically active but there are no consistent effects from independently reproducible models.", although the referenced journal is not generally regarded as being of high scientific quality.

These positive studies are unusual since no effects of high dilutions are seen in the huge number of similar studies on other biological systems. Here, low doses of chemicals give small effects and high doses large effects. This simple dose-response relationship has been confirmed in many hundreds of thousands of experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes, rats and humans.

Although some patients report benefits from homeopathic preparations, the large majority of scientists attribute this to the Placebo Effect, the regression fallacy and/or the Forer effect. Ideally, drugs are tested in large, multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trials, to test whether the drug has an effect that is significantly better than a placebo or an alternative treatment. Many clinical trials that partially meet these criteria have investigated homeopathy, and some have indicated efficacy above placebo. However, many of the trials are open to technical criticism or involve samples that are too small to allow firm conclusions to be drawn.

Some advocates of homeopathy claim that orthodox double-blind trials are inherently insufficient for deriving evidence for the technique. For example, a spokeswoman from the UK Society of Homeopaths has said: "It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy" since homeopathy is positioned as a holistic treatment, incorporating psychological/spiritual concerns as well as an active ingredient. Some critics have noted that homeopathy includes falsifiable claims, even if that is only part of the homeopathic process, or simply that such claimed immunity from orthodox scientific scrutiny is reminiscent of pseudoscience.

Basophil stimulation

Madeleine Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, and her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These cells, called basophils, release histamine when they are stimulated. However, exposure to histamine stops these cells releasing any more, an example of negative feedback regulation. Three of the four participating groups observed this inhibitory effect with homeopathic solutions of histamine, solutions so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule. These low-dilution effects were seen in six of the 24 independent sets of experiments (Table 1 of paper). A later investigation, attempting to replicate these results, failed to find any significant effect from these ultra-dilute solutions.

Evidence-based medicine

There is widespread consensus in the medical community that evidence based medicine is the best standard for assessing efficacy and safety of health-care practices, for it is "the expression of the scientific method in clinical medicine." Therefore, systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential to establish proof for various therapies. While committed to this principle, much of modern medicine is subject to ongoing efforts to comply with evidence-based standards.

Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found insufficient evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma, dementia, and induction of labor. They also found no evidence that homeopathic treatment can prevent influenza, but reported that it appears to shorten the duration of the disease. Systematic reviews conducted by other researchers found insufficient evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for osteoarthritis, migraine prophylaxis, delayed-onset muscle soreness, or symptoms of menopause.

Medical organizations' attitudes towards homeopathy

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, states that:

  • Results of individual, controlled clinical trials have been contradictory, with some saying it was no better than a placebo, with other trials having results "the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo." However, this implies a placebo was not actually used.
  • "Systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition."
  • A number of its key concepts defy chemistry, physics, and other sciences.
  • It is uncertain how a remedy with so little, "perhaps not even one molecule" of its active ingredient could have any biological effect.
  • Effects might be due to the placebo effect or similar non-specific effects.
  • It is still largely untested whether it actually works for some of the diseases it's claimed to work for, and if it did work, how it would.
  • NCAAM says that "there is a point of view" that it works, but is unexplained how, and that a lack of explanation is "not unique to homeopathy." It also says that some feel, as long as it seems "helpful and safe", no scientific explanation is necessary.
  • It continues to fund research into homeopathy.

The UK National Health Service's "Health Encyclopedia" entry on homeopathy includes the following:

  • Around 200 randomised controlled trials evaluating homeopathy have been conducted, and there are also several reviews of these trials. Despite the available research, no clinical evidence has shown that homeopathy works. Many studies suggest that any effectiveness that homeopathy may have is due to the placebo effect, where the act of receiving treatment is more effective than the treatment itself.
  • Medical doctors and scientists do not generally accept homeopathy because its claims have not been verified to the standards of modern medicine and scientific method. Scientists argue that homeopathy cannot work because the remedies used are so highly diluted that in many there can be none of the active substance remaining.

In 1997, the following statement was adopted as policy of the American Medical Association (AMA) after a report on a number of alternative therapies including homeopathy:

  • There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well-designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies.

Regulatory decisions

In 2006 Australia's Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code Council (TGACC) found that a homeopathic Hangover Relief Oral Spray marketed by Brauer Natural Medicine P/L was "in breach of section 4(1)(b) of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2005 (the Code), which states that an advertisement must contain correct and balanced statements only and claims which the sponsor has already verified, and section 4(2)(c) which prohibits misleading advertisements." The TGACC is established under Australian law and the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code is generally consistent with the World Health Organisation's "Ethical Criteria For Medicinal Drug Promotion 1988"

Homeopathy and The James Randi Million Dollar Challenge

Due to the lack of any concrete scientific evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than a placebo, the skeptic James Randi has included homeopathy in the list of candidates for his million dollar challenge. He will give a million dollars to anyone who can prove in a controlled, double-blind test, that homeopathy actually works. To date not a single person has managed to do this.

Misconceptions about homeopathy

Composition of homeopathic remedies

Arsenicum album 200

It is a common misconception that homeopathic remedies use only natural herbal components (akin to herbology). Herbs are used, but homeopathy also uses non-biological substances (such as salts, for example Dr. Schüssler's biochemic cell salts) and components of animal origin, such as duck liver in the flu remedy oscillococcinum.

In herbology, measurable amounts are used, while in homeopathy the active ingredient is diluted until it is no longer detectable, or do not contain any of the original active ingredient at all (when the dilution exceeds the Avogadro's number). Homeopathy also uses substances of human origin, called nosodes. Some people have the opposite misconception, that homeopathic remedies are based only on toxic substances like snake venom or mercury.

As the term homeopathy is well known and has good marketing value, the public can be confused by people who have adopted the term for other therapies. For example, some companies combine homeopathic with non-homeopathic substances such as herbs or vitamins, and some preparations marketed as such contain no homeopathic preparations at all. Classical homeopaths argue that only remedies prepared and prescribed in accordance with the principles of Hahnemann can be called homeopathic. Many producers of homeopathic remedies also produce other types of alternative remedies under the same brand name, which can create confusion for the public.

Homeopathy and vaccination

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
See also: Isopathy

To some, homeopathy, particularly the use of nosodes, resembles vaccination, in that vaccines contain a small dose of the "disease" against which they protect. Hahnemann interpreted the introduction of vaccination applied nowadays as such: But to use a human morbific matter (a Psorin taken from the itch in man) as a remedy for the same itch or for evils arisen therefrom, stay away from it! Nothing can result from this but trouble and aggravation of the disease. Roberts: giving the identical instead of the similar means the difference between isopathy and homoeopathy.

According to homeopathy, the body could become susceptible to "morbific noxious agents". The challenge of the homeopath is to prevent disease in the first place with the first sign of symptoms. This could be imminent long before an acute disease appears. Hahnemann classified succeeded vaccination of smallpox due to the interaction of two similar diseases (the law of similars). When an epidemic is near, one or a few remedies could be chosen to treat a population in order to prevent the epidemic. Hahnemann gave this the description of acute collective diseases. When the epidemic is there, according to Hahnemann, the homeopath observes a complete picture of the epidemic and can constitute from a small box of remedies the fitting remedy to each individual patient.

In contrast, modern scientists and doctors see the two practices as fundamentally different. A vaccine is usually a preparation made from a bacterium or virus that cannot cause disease, while still providing enough information to the immune system to afford protection. By preparing the immune system of a healthy organism to meet a future attack by the pathogen, vaccination hopes to prevent disease, in contrast to homeopathy's hope, which is to prevent or cure it with dilutions. Another important difference is that vaccine contains measurable amounts of antigen, usually proteins or carbohydrates from the disease-causing organism, whereas homeopathic remedies have been diluted to such an extent they are unlikely to contain any detectable active ingredients. The predominant view of homeopaths is that vaccination is not consistent with the principles of homeopathy, even if it is an application of the law of similars, they also believe that vaccination holds serious short and long-term (health) consequences and that vaccination may potentially arouse latent inherited and constitutional weaknesses. However, their main objection is that vaccination is a mass-applied technique based on the germ theory of disease, a view homeopaths reject, instead preferring to individualize each case of sickness.

Safety of homeopathic treatment

The United States Food & Drug Administration considers that there is no real concern over the safety of most homeopathic products "because they have little or no pharmacologically active ingredients". There have been few reports of illness associated with the use of homeopathic products, but the medical literature contains a few case reports of poisoning by heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury found in homeopathic remedies. However, in cases that they reviewed, the FDA concluded the homeopathic product was not the cause of the adverse reactions. In one case, arsenic was implicated, although FDA analysis revealed that the concentration of arsenic was too low to cause concern. Perhaps the main concern about the safety of homeopathy arises not from the products themselves, but from the possible withholding of more efficacious treatment, or from misdiagnosis of dangerous conditions by a non-medically qualified homeopath.

Dangers in misguided advice

Opponents of homeopathy argue that since homeopathy is ineffective, it could indirectly result in harm to patients who refuse medical care (see opportunity costs). For example, a 2006 survey by the UK charitable trust Sense About Science revealed homeopathic practices that were advising travelers against taking conventional anti-malarial drugs, instead providing them with a homeopathic dilution of quinine. Even the director of the The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital condemned this practice:

"I'm very angry about it because people are going to get malaria - there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.".

Several scientists said the homeopaths' advice was reprehensible and likely to endanger lives. Professor Geoffrey Pasvol, a tropical medicine expert at Imperial College in London, was reported as saying "Medical practitioners would be sued, taken to court and found guilty for far less. What this investigation has unearthed is appalling.".


Notes

  1. Samuel Hahnemann (1755 - 1843), Skylark Books, Hastings, East Sussex, United Kingdom
  2. Hahnemann, S. Fingerzeige auf den homöopathischen Gebrauch der Arzneien in der bisherigen Praxis. N. J. d. pract. Arzkd. (1807) 26:5-43
  3. Hahnemann, S. Versuch über ein neues Prinzip zur Auffindung der Heilkräfte der Arzneisubstanzen, nebst einigen Blicken auf die bisherigen. J. d. pract. Arzkd. (1796) 2(3):391-439 and 2(4):465-561. This article can be read in English translation on the Minutus website, where it appears as Essay On A New Principle For Ascertaining The Curative Powers Of Drugs - Birth of Homeopat, Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann, 1796.
  4. The six editions were published in Leipzig, 1810 (1st edition); Leipzig, end of the year, 1818 (2nd edition); Kothen, Easter, 1824 (3rd edition); Kothen, January, 1829 (4th edition); Kothen, March 28th, 1833 (5th edition); and Paris, February 1842 (estimated; 6th edition). These were published in German, and the 5th Edition was translated by Robert Ellis Dudgeon (1820-1904) in 1893 and the 6th Edition was translated by William Boericke in 1922. There have subsequently been many other translations, such as a version in 1996 by Steven Decker, and a recent French version by Pierre Schmidt and Jost Kunzli.
  5. Ernst, E. and Kaptchuk, T.J., Homeopathy Revisited, Archives of Internal Medicine, 156(19):2162-4, 1996, PMID 8885813
  6. Kleijnen, J., Knipschild, P., and ter Riet, G, Clinical Trials of Homeopathy, British Medical Journal, 302(6782):316-23, 1991, PMID 1825800
  7. Organon Of Medicine §11, Samuel Hahnemann, Web Version Copyright © 1997 Homeopathy Home
  8. Homeopathy Views the Uniqueness of Each Patient, Peter Morrell, Articles on Homeopathy by Peter Morrell, July 2003.
  9. Taking Homeopathy into the Shadows: A Sequential Causal Approach to Treating Chronic Disease, Rudolf Verspoor, Homeopathy Online, October-December 1996, Vol. 1, No. 3
  10. Homeopathy, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Suddha and Homeopathy, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.
  11. Medicine in Europe: Complementary medicine in Europe, Fisher, P. Ward, A. , BMJ 1994;309:107-111, PMID 8038643
  12. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002, Davis, R. B., Phillips, R. S., Eisenberg, D. M., Tindle, H. A, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2005 (Vol. 11) (No. 1) 42-49
  13. European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines official website
  14. Organon Of Medicine § 269, Samuel Hahnemann, (fifth edition, translated by Robert Ellis Dudgeon, 1893), Kothen, March 28th, 1833
  15. National Science Board Subcommittee on Science & Engineering Indicators (2000). "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding Science Fiction and Pseudoscience". National Science Foundation. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
  16. NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy, National Council Against Health Fraud, February 1994.
  17. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–32. PMID 16125589.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. Nature 438, 902 - 902 (14 Dec 2005)
  19. Malaria advice `risks lives`: Some high street homeopaths claim they can prevent malaria, a Newsnight investigation has found, Meirion Jones, Newsnight, BBC, Thursday, 13 July 2006.
  20. Homoeopathy may not be effective in preventing malaria, Pascal Delaunay, BMJ, 2000 November 18, 321(7271), 1288, PMID 11082104
  21. Homeopathy, Dr. Peterson, Center for Natural Medicine, Winona, Minnesota
  22. Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann, Who Named it?
  23. CHINA (Cinchona Bark.), Samuel Hahnemann, Materia Medica Pura, vol. iii, 2nd edit., 1825, Homeopathy for Everyone: Everything Homeopathic!
  24. James Tyler Kent, New Remedies, Lesser Writings and Aphorisms & Precepts, Chicago: Ehrhart & Karl, 1926, quoted in Francis Treuherz, Origins of Kent's Homeopathy, Jnl Amer Inst Homeo, 77.4, 1984, 130-49; 140-1
  25. The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure, Samuel Hahnemann, Presented By Médi-T
  26. Anti Matter: The Homœopathic Proving of Positronium - A Remedy prepared from the Annihilation Radiation of Positronium, an atomic structure consisting of an electron and a positron, Misha Norland & TG 15, School of Homœopathy, 1998.
  27. Electricitas: Electricity. The effects of atmospheric electricity and static electricity. Attenuations are made from sugar of milk saturated with the current., John Henry CLARKE, A DICTIONARY OF PRACTICAL MATERIA MEDICA, Médi-T ®
  28. The Homeopathic Proving of 'Tempesta' the Storm, Mary English, registered member of the Society of Homeopaths
  29. THE BERLIN WALL: A REMEDY OF POWER, Charles Wansbrough, PRECISION HOMEOPATHY: Engineering clarity through a Techno-Shamanic Process Bioliminal Homeopathy
  30. CHELIDONIUM MAJUS (Celandine.), Samuel Hahnemann, Materia Medica Pura, vol. iv, 2nd edit., 1825.,Homeopathy for Everyone: Everything Homeopathic!
  31. Diagnostic dowsing machines, Douglas Hoff, Classical Homeopathy
  32. Medical dowsing, Douglas Hoff, Classical Homeopathy
  33. Psychic methods of diagnosis and treatment in acupuncture and homeopathy, Philip A.M. Rogers, 1980, 1982, updated 1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, The Medical Acupuncture Webpage
  34. Tautopathy - An Introduction, Manish Bhatia, Tautopathy, Homeopathy for Everyone: Everything Homeopathic!
  35. The Bowel Nosodes, John Paterson, Br Homeopath J., 1950 Jul;40(3):153-62., PMID 15426696
  36. Modern Divisions, Douglas Hoff, Classical Homeopathy
  37. Jan Scholten, Jan Scholten, 2004
  38. REVIEW OF SCHOLTEN'S HOMEOPATHY AND MINERALS: The Minerals in Homoeopathy, David Little, Homeopathic Online Education, 1998.
  39. The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure, Samuel Hahnemann, page 5, 1928, Presented By Médi-T
  40. The Chronic Diseases, their Nature and Homoeopathic Treatment, Samuel Hahnemann, Dresden and Leipsic, Arnold, Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1828; vol. 4, 1830
  41. Organon Of Medicine §11, Note 2, Samuel Hahnemann, Note 2, §11
  42. Organon of Medicine §80, Samuel Hahnemann, §80
  43. Homeopathy is a Natural Science in its Purest Sense: Interview with André Saine, N.D., F.C.A.H., Part 2, Ralf and Karin Vigoureux, September 13, 2001, originally published in German in the Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie 2004; 48 (3): 117-127, The Canadian Academy of Homeopathy official website
  44. Sir John Forbes, Homeopathy, Allopathy and Young Physic, London, 1846
  45. James Y Simpson, Homoeopathy, Its Tenets and Tendencies, Theoretical, Theological and Therapeutical, Edinburgh: Sutherland & Knox, 1853, 11
  46. J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
  47. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–32. PMID 16125589.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  48. Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer. 2006 Feb;42(3):282-9.
  49. Kolisko, Lily, Physiologisher und physikalischer Nachweis der Wirksamkeit kleinster Entitäten, Stuttgart (1959), Junker, H. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 45. Nr. 1 (1925), p. 26 and Plügers Arhiv f. ges. Phys. 219B Nr. 5/6 (1928)
  50. Davenas, E., et al., "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE", Nature", V. 333, pp. 816-8
  51. Wälchli, Baumgartner and Bastide, "Effect of Low Doses and High Homeopathic Potencies in Normal and Cancerous Human Lymphocytes: An In Vitro Isopathic Study", Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Jun 2006, Vol. 12, No. 5: 421-427
  52. *Husemann, Friedwart, "The Activity of Very Small Entities: Its Verification from Kolisko (1923) to Benveniste (1988), The Anthroposophical Conceptual Basis of Potentization, v. IV.
    • Pelikan, W. and Unger, G. Die Wirkung potenzierter Substanzen Dornach (1965)
    • Schwenk, Theodor, Grundlagen der Potenzforschung, Stuttgart (1974)
  53. # Hirst SJ, Hayes NA, Burridge J, Pearce FL, Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE. Nature. 1993 Dec 9;366(6455):525-7.
  54. Ovelgonne JH, Bol AW, Hop WC, van Wijk R. Mechanical agitation of very dilute antiserum against IgE has no effect on basophil staining properties. Experientia. 1992 May 15;48(5):504-8.
  55. Claudia M Witt, Michael Bluth, Stephan Hinderlich, Henning Albrecht, Rainer Lüdtke, Thorolf E R Weisshuhn, Stefan N Willich Does Potentized HgCl(2) (Mercurius corrosivus) Affect the Activity of Diastase and alpha-Amylase?J Altern Complement Med. 2006 May ;12:359-65
  56. Guggisberg AG, Baumgartner SM, Tschopp CM, Heusser P. Replication study concerning the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on human basophil degranulation in vitro. Complement Ther Med. 2005 Jun;13(2):91-100.
  57. Walach et al., "Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art", Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Volume 11, Number 5, 2005, pp. 813–829
  58. Boyd WA, Williams PL. "Comparison of the sensitivity of three nematode species to copper and their utility in aquatic and soil toxicity tests." Environ Toxicol Chem. 2003 Nov;22(11):2768-74
  59. Goldoni M, Vettori MV, Alinovi R, Caglieri A, Ceccatelli S, Mutti A. "Models of neurotoxicity: extrapolation of benchmark doses in vitro." Risk Anal. 2003 Jun;23(3):505-14.
  60. Yu HS, Liao WT, Chai CY. "Arsenic Carcinogenesis in the Skin." J Biomed Sci. 2006 Jun 29;
  61. Website of The Society of Homeopaths
  62. Wayne B. Jonas, Ted J. Kaptchuk, and Klaus Linde, "A Critical Overview of Homeopathy" Ann. Intern. Med.. 2003;138:393-399.
  63. Jonas WB, Anderson RL, Crawford CC, Lyons JS (2001). "A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic clinical trials". BMC Complement Altern Med. 1: 12. PMID 11801202.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  64. "Homoeopathy's benefit questioned". BBC News.
  65. The Skeptic's dictionary Homeopathy
  66. Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FA. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflamm Res. 2004 May;53(5):181-8.
  67. Guggisberg AG, Baumgartner SM, Tschopp CM, Heusser P. Replication study concerning the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on human basophil degranulation in vitro. Complement Ther Med. 2005 Jun;13(2):91-100.
  68. "Declaration of Helsinki should be strengthened" BMJ 2000;321:442-445 ( 12 August )
  69. "Cochrane Collaboration-asthma".
  70. "Cochrane Collaboration-dementia".
  71. "Cochrane Collaboration-induction of labor".
  72. "Cochrane Collaboration-influenza".
  73. "osteoarthritis article". Bandolier Journal.
  74. "migraine prophylaxis article". Bandolier Journal.
  75. "delayed-onset muscle soreness article". Bandolier Journal.
  76. "symptoms of menopause article". Bandolier Journal.
  77. ^ NCCAM statement on homeopathy, Question 8.
  78. ^ NCCAM statement on homeopathy, Question 9.
  79. NCCAM statement on homeopathy, Question 10.
  80. NHS Health Encyclopedia entry on Homeopathy: Results
  81. NHS Health Encyclopedia entry on Homeopathy: Dosage.
  82. "alternative theories including homeopathy". American Medical Association.
  83. Website of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code Council
  84. Organon § 56 6th. edition
  85. H.A. Roberts: The Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy, chapter 1
  86. Organon § 31
  87. Organon § 56
  88. Organon § 33
  89. Organon § 73
  90. Organon § 100-104
  91. http://www.homeopathy.healthspace.eu/regular/homeopathy.php#Homeopathy-vaccination
  92. Understanding Vaccines: what they are and how they work. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases NIH Publication No. 03-4219 July 2003 pdf
  93. Vliegenthart JF. Carbohydrate based vaccines. FEBS Lett. 2006 May 22;580(12):2945-50. PMID 16630616
  94. Rudi Verspoor The Homeopathic View of Vaccination Homeopathy Online
  95. ibid
  96. ibid
  97. Chakraborti D, Mukherjee SC, Saha KC, Chowdhury UK, Rahman MM, Sengupta MK (2003). "Arsenic toxicity from homeopathic treatment". J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 41 (7): 963–7. PMID 14705842.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  98. Montoya-Cabrera MA, Rubio-Rodriguez S, Velazquez-Gonzalez E, Avila Montoya S (1991). "Mercury poisoning caused by a homeopathic drug". Gac Med Mex. 127 (3): 267–70. PMID 1839288.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Article in Spanish.
  99. Audicana M, Bernedo N, Gonzalez I, Munoz D, Fernandez E, Gastaminza G (2001). "An unusual case of baboon syndrome due to mercury present in a homeopathic medicine". Contact Dermatitis. 45 (3): 185. PMID 11553159.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  100. Wiesmuller GA, Weishoff-Houben M, Brolsch O, Dott W, Schulze-Robbecke R (2002). "Environmental agents as cause of health disorders in children presented at an outpatient unit of environmental medicine". Int J Hyg Environ Health. 205 (5): 329–35. PMID 12173530.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  101. Science and Technology - Sixth Report Science and Technology Committee Publications
  102. ' Malaria advice 'risks lives By By Meirion Jones, BBC Newsnight
  103. Homeopaths 'endangering lives' by offering malaria remedies Alok Jha, science correspondent Friday July 14, 2006 The Guardian

Sources

  • About Bandolier and us (Bandolier Homeopathy - dilute information and little knowledge). Boundolier Journal,
  • Almeida R.M. (2003). "A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine". Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 58 (6): 324–31. PMID 14762492.
  • Cucherat M., Haugh M.C., Gooch M., Boissel J.P. (2000). "Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group". Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 56 (1): 27–33. PMID 10853874.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Dudley, P., ed., Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases, footnote to pp.12-13, B. Jain Publishers, 1998 reprint
  • Ernst, E., Classical homeopathy versus conventional treatments: a systematic review, Perfusion, (1999); 12: 13-15
  • Kleijnen J., Knipschild P., ter Riet G. (1991). "Trials of homeopathy". BMJ. 302 (6782): 960. PMID 1827743.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Linde K., Clausius N., Ramirez G., Melchart D., Eitel F., Hedges L.V., Jonas W.B. (1997). "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials". Lancet. 350 (9081): 834–43. PMID 9310601.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Linde K., Scholz M., Ramirez G., Clausius N., Melchart D., Jonas W.B. (1999). "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy". J Clin Epidemiol. 52 (7): 631–6. PMID 10391656.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Linde K., Melchart D. (1998). "Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review". J Altern Complement Med. 4 (4): 371–88. PMID 9884175.
  • Phillips Stevens Jr., (Nov-Dec, 2001), Magical Thinking in Complementary and Alternative Medicine . Skeptical Inquirer.
  • Randi, J., An interview with James Randi: Homeopathy: The Test - programme summary . BBC.
  • Randi, J., Educational Foundation. "The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge 'FAQ'". Retrieved 13 September, 2005.
  • Yutar, G., (April 16, 2006), Homeopathy - Why and when? Yatar's bolg on blogspot.com .
  • Walach, H., Unspezifische Therapie-Effekte. Das Beispiel Homöopathie . Freiburg, Germany: Psychologische Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, (1997)


Further reading

See also

External links

Neutral

Advocacy

Critical


Topics in homeopathy
Workbooks
Historical documents
Homeopaths
Organizations
Related
Criticism
See also
Categories: