Download Details Of The Homoeopathic Philosophy And Proving

Chapter 3:
Details of The Homeopathic Philosophy
and Proving
CHAPTER 3
Details Of The Homoeopathic Philosophy And Proving
Abstract: The philosophy of the elements of homeopathic treatments will be detailed in this chapter.
These elements are ; disease and totality of symptoms, proving of the artificial disease produced by
remedy, the required similarity between the artificial disease produced by the remedy and the totality of
the symptoms on the patient and the laws and concepts that should be employed in case taking and
applying remedy. In addition, closely related types of remedies such as Bach’s and Biochemical
remedies will be also outlined.
While it is true that homeopaths presently do not know precisely how the homeopathic micro
doses work and skeptic views from modern pharmacologists; some compelling theories about their
mechanism of action and evidence that supports efficacy are detailed in this chapter. Furthermore, a
review of small body of clinical and cost effectiveness research is given to answer the questions of
skeptics’ views about the efficacy and safety of the homeopathic micro doses. Finally, more research is
needed to help homeopaths to optimize the homeopathic health care systems and managements. Such
system will reduce cost of doctors’ visits and hospitalization.
3.1. Disease and Symptoms1
Hahnemann stressed that a disease can only be recognized by its perceptible signs or symptoms.
Furthermore, he believed that it’s the totality of these symptoms to which the physician must address
himself.
Disease (from the French word ‘disaise’ in this context may be defined as an abnormal condition,
constituting a deviation from a sound state of health, characterized by disturbance, derangement or
impairment of functions of the body or mind. Thus, a specific disease exhibits characteristic symptoms,
which may be accompanied by the presence of specific parasitic organisms in the blood or tissues.
Symptom (from the Greek, ’sumptoma‘meaning chance or casualty) is defined as a predictable change
or sign, in all organs or organic function due to, and indicating, the presence of disease.
‘A single symptom is no more the whole disease than a single foot of a man’ (Organon, para
7).’Orthodox medicine attempts to suppress only one of many symptoms that diseases present, not only
that, they could also be the cause of other appearing symptoms (side effects), and so it’s a short sighted
method, which does much harm. The totality of symptoms, the outer image expressing the inner essence
of disease must be the main event, which only means by which disease allows us to find the necessary
remedy. In every individual case of disease, the totality of symptoms must be the main physician’s
principal concern’.
To illustrate the suppressive nature of conventional or orthodox treatment, let us consider
Inflammation, which is an essential part of the body’s natural immune response to injury or infection.
1
Extracted from http://www.ecn.cz/alternativa/book/hocu13.htm
33
The pain of inflammation is due to the stimulation of the nerve endings by the inflammatory chemicals –
histamine and others-which are released. These chemicals increase the blood flow to the damaged tissue
and cause an accumulation of white blood cells .the white blood cells destroy the invading microorganisms and are involved in repairing damaged tissue. Thus, by taking conventional drugs to suppress
inflammation, like corticosteroids drugs or NSAIDs, the body’s natural immune response will be
hindered.
As stated in the Organon (para. 8); “we can categorically declare that the totality of symptoms
and the circumstances observed in each individual case is the one and only indication that can guide us
to the choice of remedy’.
Factors that cause and sustain disease are important to the homoeopathic physician; since
permanent elimination of a headache is only clarified if the cause of the headache can be determined e.g.
a headache caused by a blow to the head is treated differently than a headache caused by stress. This was
also clearly stated in the Organon in para.5 as follows; “It will help the physician to bring about a cure if
he can determine the most probable exciting cause in an acute disease and the most significant phases in
the evolution of a chronic, long lasting disease, enabling him to discover its underlying cause”.
Homeopaths look at local diseases as a defense of the organism, as a defense of the governing
center against declivity, against developing a chronic constitutional disease, against weakening of the
constitution. Remarkably, symptoms of disease also signify a certain level of inner health - ability of the
organism to put up a defense against decay. Through tonsillitis the organism prevents the pathology
from advancing inwards by allowing the tonsils, a lesser organ on the outer line of defense, to become
infected. The organism is able to stop the advance here. If we interfere with antibiotics, the bastion is
conquered and the disorganization moves on. The next round of the fight might be fought out on the
kidneys, on the lungs or on the heart.
Fig.1. loosing control with conventional medicines.
34
Returning to the analogy of the staircase; each step represents a particular line of defense, an
obstacle to further descend. If we demolish the step by allopathic drugs, the staircase turns into a slide.
Another possibility is that the center is too weak and incapable of placing any steps to bar the
natural fall into pathology, and such a person slides right down to the most serious diseases, without any
colds or rashes. e.g. some reported appearance of cancers where the pathology advances without
obstacles, straight to the most important organs, and so the patient is never on the stair case instead he is
always on the slide. Opposed to this we all have our experience with hypochondriacs, people who
constantly complain of some pains, who always have some inflammations, whose bodies ever give them
warning signals - and such people usually live to a ripe old age. They have a relatively strong governing
center, which stubbornly resists any moves towards pathology, constantly displaying some symptoms.
There is yet another group of people, unfortunately growing fast. Here belong the regular drug addicts
who use heroin and similar things, but also the "legalised drug addicts" - those who take sleeping pills
and tranquillisers and all kinds of tablets, if possible as prevention. Their practical approach to our
staircase is as follows: They take a run up at the top and jump, evading all the unpleasant encounters
with the steps. They want to avoid the suffering, which the staircase (as a painful obstruction) would
cause them. And they succeed to a degree. Nevertheless, the harder they crush at the bottom and the
sooner it happens. Such a dive might result in the complete destruction of their immunity system (or the
ability of their center to combat pathology) and in other and most serious chronic illnesses, i.e. kidney
disease, liver disease, heart disease, malignant tumors...
From the homeopathic point of view, symptoms (the organism's defense) have another important
aspect. They provide us with the main lead for selecting the remedy. Where there are no symptoms there
cannot be any treatment. "No symptoms, no cure.", says a distinguished American author. The cases of
patients who display only a small number of symptoms or "lesser symptoms" can be more difficult to
treat, and sometimes it is necessary to try out several remedies before the target is hit.
To a homeopath, the human body and the mind are like windows displaying the patient's inner
state. When the display is hazy we learn little. It is sometimes easier to treat the patient with a large
number of symptoms than the patient who is almost without symptoms. On the other hand, few people
would pass as being healthy, in front of a homeopath, few of those who declare that they are healthy, at
any rate.
Practically all people display some signs or symptoms that characterize their constitution, either
in the mental area, in the general reactions, or in the minor physical pathology. This, of course, is great,
as it enables us to give the constitutional remedy even to relatively healthy people, as prevention; so this
proves that homeopathy is still not totally against the use of conventional therapy unless misused.
Treatment from the Center
The pinnacle of health is perhaps characterized by a person whose physical organs are in perfect
order, but who also stands on a high level of mental, psychological development. And such a person can
be created from a previously diseased one, precisely by the homeopathic method of treatment. The
reason is that homeopathic cure affects both the body and the mind at the same time. Whatever is
happening within the mind is reflected on the physical organs, and whatever happens in the body also
influences the mind.
35
According to Hering's Laws of Cure, when the correctly prescribed remedy is applied, the
curative process first affects the mind, which includes the power of our will, evaluation, decision
making. The next "envelope" in which the process of treatment, the "curative wave" manifests, is the
emotional layer. From here the cure moves onto the physical organs, in order of their importance for the
sustenance of life functions (the brain, the heart, the kidneys, etc.), or in the reverse order to how the
symptoms first appeared (the former is usually virtually identical with the latter). At the same time
during the treatment entirety of the whole being is maintained. As long as pathology exists in the
physical organs, the mind cannot be entirely healthy either.
Fig.2. Homoeopathic holism considerations.
We often hear the allopathic doctors say, particularly after a prolonged unsuccessful treatment,
and in cases where the physical cause cannot be exactly pinpointed: "That problem of yours (those
pains), it's only psychological. It's a psychosomatic matter." They imply that nothing can be done in this
case, and that after all, it is not considered to be very serious. As opposed to that, a homeopath thinks of
all diseases, acute or chronic, as being closely related to the mind and psychology. Even though he or
she does not believe that the cause would be exactly in the mind. It is higher - in the nonmaterialgoverning center, which can be influenced by the nonmaterial potency of the remedy.
36
3.1.b. Fundamental principles of homoeopathy in The Organon2
Only in 1810 “The Organon of Medicine” was published in Leipzig, in which the entire system
of homeopathic treatment is outlined and described. During the lifetime of its author it went through
four more editions, which were in passing changed and corrected (2nd edition 1819, 3rd edition 1824,
4th edition 1829, 5th edition 1833). The sixth edition, came out a long time after Hahnemann's death.
The Organon, in its 294 paragraphs and with numerous subsequently added notes, offers not only
the basics of homeopathic treatment, but also very detailed suggestions on treatment. At the same time it
warns against the mistakes in treatment, those made out of ignorance, or even intentionally. A large part
of the work, particularly the sixth edition, is formed from the polemics with allopathy, or the orthodox
medicine.
Hahnemann in his Organon:
(a) In the light of the new method offered a thorough criticism of allopathic treatment.
(b) Outlined the basic principle of the new treatment, i.e. prescribing the remedy accordingly to its
similarity to a particular disease.
(c) Designed the course of examinations that determine the effect of remedy on a healthy person.
(d) Established that only one remedy should be given at any time, as only one correctly selected remedy
can affect the totality of all symptoms of the patient. Thanks to the proving, we know the effects of the
remedies described in the Materia Medica (s). If we mixed two or more remedies together, we would get
a compound of unknown properties, where the parts interfere with each other. It would be a shot into the
dark. The practice has reliably proved that such mixtures have uncertain or suppressive effects,
discrediting homeopathy through their results. If the remedy does not work as it should and does not
bring about a complete cure, any fine-tuning must always be done through the more accurate
prescription of a homeopathic remedy. Hahnemann called the practitioners allured to combining the
homeopathic remedies with the occasional use of conventional orthodox drugs, rather than of the correct
simillimum, "the homeopathic bastards", and often publicly attacked them. He worried that if such
improper practices were to become widespread, homeopathy could cease to exist.
(e) Hahnemann's conscientiousness on the one hand assured that homeopathy as a pure idea had
survived and progressed further, on the other hand it made him a lot of enemies, not only from the ranks
of allopaths, but also in the camp of "lukewarm" followers of homeopathy, who also used the allopathic
methods.
(f) Hahnemann described the process of manufacturing remedies and how to make them into
homeopathic potencies through successive dilution and shaking.
(g) He defined the philosophical horizon of the treatment, which at the first sight does not appear to be
directly related to the medical practice, but to a deeper and more informed viewer it forms the core of
the system. Those unable to perceive this core can never become good and successful homeopaths. They
will always be liable to be seduced by the opposing systems of thought and would incline towards using
allopathy to suppress an illness. In this context, Hahnemann (and naturally all of his followers), was
marked by the allopaths as a dogmatist, insistent on his truth to the letter and incapable of any dialogue.
Hahnemann nevertheless pointed out that homeopathy when practiced only partially, with some of its
principles rejected, i.e. the product of such a "dialogue", is no longer homeopathy and does not achieve
the curative results. The same dogmatic approach can be observed in other fields too. For example, the
mathematicians dogmatically insist that 1 + 1 = 2 and no one could talk them out of it; if they abandoned
2
Please refer to chapter 2.
37
their dogma, the whole system of mathematics would collapse. With homeopathy it is the same. When
its basic principles are deserted, the system collapses, the treatment becomes haphazard, the results
uncertain, it is no longer capable of curing chronic diseases, it may perhaps be of a suppressive
character.
(h) Hahnemann established how the patient should be examined.
(i) He outlined how the case should be followed further, and stated that the remedy should be applied
again only when the curative effect of the first dose had ceased, and the disease tends to return to its
original state before the treatment.
(j) He said that disease is never a single entity, nothing that exists on its own, nothing that could be
passed on as an item. Disease is always a fault within the dynamic system of organism. Disease means
that something in the organism, either in the psychology or its physical parts, unwinds in a different way
than it should. "There are no diseases, there are only diseased people". By this Hahnemann implied that
diseases mean nothing to him, that they are no leading strings to therapy. The remedy must always be
selected in accordance to the overall state of the organism.
(k) Hahnemann established that the organism (including the psyche) is guided by the non-material
"animating force", "dynamis", and a non-material organizing principle. In a healthy organism, a healthy
organizing principle rules. Such organism cannot be touched by any disease, and from experience we
know, that many people do not fall ill during the epidemics, even though they breathe the same air, drink
the same water and eat the same food as those who become ill. An inclination towards illness occurs
only when the organizing principle has been disturbed. Then there is the inclination towards pathology.
When administering a homeopathic remedy, first restored is the organizing principle, it then restores to
health the body and the mind. The bacteria, running a riot on the tonsils, disappear in a short while after
the remedy was taken, without a need to kill them by antibiotics. They depart, rejected by the healthy
organism, which again has a healthful governing center. All disorders come from this center. This is a
well-known truth, understood by the economists, as well as the politicians. A bad government means
that the country is on the decline. The success of any company depends above all on its management.
The company that is well managed with inventiveness and flexibility will survive during a recession.
Even if attacked by terrorists, it will repair the damage, dress its wounds, restore its workmen; so long as
it has capable managerial staff, who had secured ample financial reserves, who had sent out the rescue
workers, who had organized the help to the victims, etc. The far-sighted management may even warn off
any terrorists before they strike. An organism with a healthful center will defy any bacteria. The logic of
this is quite clear, nevertheless the only problem is that to date no X-ray, no microscope, not even a
magnetic resonance, let alone a scalpel, have been able to reveal such a governing center. This is the
fundamental problem in the controversy of idealism with materialism. The materialists insist on having
some tangible evidence. Why, they have it. There is the health, given to many people by homeopathic
remedies.
(l) In the context of the above, Hahnemann said that even the smallest dose (or the highest potency)
could never be as subtle as the actual cause of the disease. Essentially this means that the disease is
always of a spiritual origin. A brave idea? Hardly. A logical one. There is something spiritual in any
idealistic system in the first place, and something material as its consequence, in the second place.
(m) Hahnemann laid out the dietary rules that the patient should follow. They were a great deal stricter
than those held by the contemporary homeopaths. For example, among others, he did not recommend tea
or pork meat.
Note: For further reference to the Organon please refer to chapter 2.
38
3.1.c. Proving and the Materia Medica
Hahnemann, his family and co-workers spent the rest of their lives extensively testing, or
"proving," many common herbal and medicinal substances to find out what symptoms they could cause.
Apart from the results of homeopathic proving, the remedial picture is also formed by the
knowledge of toxicology, information gained from accidental poisonings or from criminal
investigations. And, naturally, from experiences gained in homeopathic clinical practice, as the
effectiveness of remedies can be verified and the knowledge increased particularly through the study of
patients and their reactions to the prescribed remedies.
The basic diagnostic tool is a book containing the detailed pictures of individual remedies.
The first one was Hahnemann's Materia Medica Pura, Hahnemann’s second major work. It was
published in six volumes between 1811 and 1821. The Materia Medica Pura consisted of symptom
pictures from proving of 66 remedies, listed alphabetically, with their characteristic symptoms and
indications for use. To put this in another way, it consists of a list of the proving symptoms for each
remedy .these symptoms were grouped together or categorized, under the following headings:
-Mind
- Head
-Eyes
-Ears
-Nose
-Throat
-Stomach
-Abdomen
-Stool
-Urine
-Male
-Female
-Back
-Extremities
-Respiratory
-Sleep
-Heart
-Fever
-Skin
Each remedy was listed alphabetically, by its classical Latin name followed by its common
English name of the source of the remedy e.g. RHUS TOXICODENDRON (Poison Ivy). This is followed
by an introductory account of the general effects, affinities and special characteristics. After the listing
of the proving symptoms, follows a list of Complementary Remedies (remedies which act to assist the
remedy used, in its action or which follow well), and finally the Modalities.
Dozens of other Materia Medica publications followed, all adopting the same format. The reason
for the creation of more books was the increased knowledge of the remedial effects. The number of
remedies that were tried out has also increased. The various authors had various views of the remedies,
some stressed their psychological effects, others preferred the general symptoms, some had concentrated
only on the characteristic nature of remedies, omitting the general symptoms, others tried to present a
clear view of the symptoms, etc. Such a variety of views is useful, because each individual patient has to
be viewed from a somewhat different angle. Therefore, every homeopath should have more Materia
Medicas to his or her disposal.
39
3.1.d. Closely related remedies
3.1.d.i. Bach remedies
The ‘Bach Remedies’ are closely related or analogous to homoeopathic remedies, although they
are not strictly homoeopathic since they are not prepared in potencies.
Dr.Edward Bach, (1886 – 1936), practiced as consultant, bacteriologist and homoeopath for
more than 16 years in London, before he gave up his homoeopathic practice in 1930 and settled in
Oxford shire in England to devote the rest of his life to a search for a more natural method of treatment
which, as he explained,’ requires nothing to be destroyed or altered ‘. He came to the conclusion that
disease was not primarily due to physical causes, but to deeper disharmony within the patient. He
thought that distress of mind, such s fear, worry, anxiety, impatience, depletes the vitality of the
individual that the body loses its natural resistance to disease and is then vulnerable to infection or any
form of illness. With the help of the healing properties of the wild flowers of the countryside, he found
the sufferer could gain strength to overcome his or her anxieties, fears and depressions. Dr.Bach had
previously gained fame for his work with Dr.Paterson in introducing the Bowel Nosodes, which are now
an important part of the homoeopathic Materia Medica.
Dr. Bach’s own interpretation of the action of these remedies was expressed as follows:
‘The action of these remedies is to raise our vibrations and open up our channels for the
reception of the spiritual self; to flood our natures with the particular virtue we need and wash out from
us the fault that is causing us harm. There is no true healing unless there is a change in outlook, peace of
mind and inner happiness.’
His theory was that all diseases are of mental origin, and they are, thus, prescribed on the basis of
mental indications only.
He developed 38 remedies, prepared from fresh flowers, trees and special waters. Each remedy is
associated with a specific set of emotions.
The remedies are shown in Table 1 (the key symptoms are the most characteristic symptoms,
when energy is blocked and the energy of the flower is needed and, therefore, they enable diagnosis)
40
Table 1. Bach Remedies
Remedy
Agrimony
Aspen
Beech
Centaury
Cerato
Cherry Plum
Chestnut Bud
Chicorv
Clematis
Crab Appis
Elm
Gentian
Gorse
Heather
Holly
Honeysuckle
Hornbeam
Impatiens
Larch
Mimulus
Mustard
Oak
Olive
Pine
Red Chestnut
Rock Rose
Rock Water
Scleranthus
Star of Bethlehem
Sweet Chestnut
Verrain
Vine
Walnut
Water Violet
White Chesnut
Wild Oat
Wild Rose
Willow
Symptoms
Concealing, torturing thoughts, inner restlessness
Fear of unknown things
Intolerance, arrogance
The inability to say ‘no’, weak willed
Lack of trust in one’s own decisions
Fear of the mind giving way
Failure to learn from mistakes
Selfish, possessive love
Dreaming of the future without working in the present
The cleansing remedy, also for self-hatred
Overwhelmed by responsibility
Discouragement after a setback
Hopelessness and despair
Self-centeredness and self-concern
Hatred, envy and jealousy
Living in the past
Procrastination, tiredness at the thought of doing something
Impatience
Lack of confidence
Fear of known things
Deep gloom for no reason
The plodder who keeps going past the point of exhaustion
Exhaustion following mental or physical effort
Guilt, self reproach
Over-concern for the welfare of loved ones
Terror and fright
Self-denial, rigidity and self-repression
Inability to choose between alternatives
Shock
Extreme mental anguish, when everything has been tried and there is
no light left.
Over-enthusiasm
Dominance and inflexibility
Protection from change and unwanted influences
Pride and aloofness
Unwanted thoughts and mental arguments
Uncertainty over one's direction in life
Drifting, resignation, apathy
Self-pity and resentment
41
The 39th remedy as it’s often called is, in fact a combination of five Bach remedies and it’s
probably the best known. It’s a first aid treatment for emergency situations, whilst waiting for medical
assistance. e.g. traumatic situations, after a family row, witnessing an accident, or before an operation.
3.1.d.ii. Biochemic remedies
Also known as the Tissue remedies or Schuster’s tissue salt remedies.
This is a system of medicine evolved by Dr. Schussler in 1873. Schussler was a homeopath who
propounded the theory that disease is caused by the insufficiency of organic salts in the tissues/cells of
the body and that the supply of these deficient salt(s) cures diseases.
Schussler identified 12 homeopathic medicines as the Biochemic remedies. These twelve basic
salts are:
1) Calcarea fluor (Calcium fluoride)
2) Calcium phosphorica (Calcium phosphate)
3) Calcium sulphate
4) Ferrum phosphorica (Iron phosphate)
5) Kali muriaticum (Potassium chloride)
6) Kali phosphorica (Potassium phosphate)
7) Kali sulphurica (Potassium sulphate)
8) Magnesia Phosphorica (Magnesium phosphate)
9) Natrum muriaticum (Sodium chloride)
10) Natrum sulphuricum (Glauber's salt - Sodium sulphate)
11) Natrum phosphoricum (Sodium phosphate)
12) Silicea.
They are given in a low potency 1x, 2x, 6x, and 12x, 30x.
Table 2 lists out the Biochemic remedies. It also points out the indicators for prescription of
these medicines - such as the state of the tongue, the discharges, the aggravations (factors worsening the
problems) and ameliorations (factors improving / alleviating the problem).
42
Table 2. Biochemic remedies
Medicine
Symptoms
Occurring
Discharges
Indicated
mainly in
State of
tongue
Calc fluor
Bone related
problems,
lumbago, piles
Cracked
Calc phos
General tonic,
cough, skin
problems
Bad taste in
the morning
Calc sulph
All kinds of
suppurations
Clay
coloured,
sour, soapy,
acrid taste.
Ferr phos
First stages of all
pains, fever,
inflammations
Clean & red.
Also throat
dry.
Kali mur
Respiratory
problems,
tonsils/throat
problems
White or
grey coated
Kali phos
Brain disorders.
Nerves &
muscles related
problems
Stale,
brownish –
mustard like
taste. Dry in
the morning.
Conditions of
Aggravations
Thick, lumpy yellow
discharge from nose,
Expectoration yellow
mucus. Flooding in
menses, yellow pus
from ulcers
Discharges
albuminous (like the
white of egg)
Damp weather.
Rest
Discharges of
gonorrhea &
leucorrhoea /
expectoration much
bloody - yellow mixed
with blood
Dryness, burning &
scanty expectoration
mixed with blood,
Menses bright red.
Easily coagulates
Getting wet.
By washing.
Water.
Thick, white, slime or
phlegm. Motion clay
coloured, Stools
bloody, blood from
scales (eczema)
Blood thin, black,
offensive odour.
Burning scalding.
Dysentry with pure
blood, stoolsoffensive odour.
Night.
Cold.
Getting wet.
Ameliorat
ions
Cold
fomentatio
n. By
rubbing.
By Heat
Warm
room.
Warm
weather.
Warm.
Dry
environme
nt.
Heat.
Hot drinks.
Motion.
Shaking of
head.
Stooping
Eating rich &
fat food.
Motion
Cold air.
Cold
applicatio
ns.
Noise.
Being alone.
Exertion.
Cold.
Cheerful
excitement
.
Gentle
motion.
Rest.
Heat.
Hot
applicatio
n&
drinks.
43
Continue…
Table 2. Biochemic remedies
Medicine
Indicated
mainly in
Kali sulph
Headaches,
Skin related,
asthmatic
problems
Mag phos
Spasms,
pains,
cardiac
related
problems.
Nat mur
Nat phos
Symptoms
State of tongue
Occurring Discharges
Yellow, slimy,
whitish edges.
Taste lost,
burning heat in
mouth. Peeling
of lip skin.
Clean / coated
white. Dry
mouth, sticky
saliva at corners
of lip.
Slimy, yellowish or
greenish mucus
discharge. Skin hot and
dry. Scaling of scalp.
Expectoration profuse –
shiny, yellow/greenish.
Diarrhea watery,
menstrual flow – dark,
clotted, intermittent.
Malarial
conditions,
gastrobilous
problems.
Dry, parched,
sore throat, salty
taste, blisters.
Liver &
gastric
problems.
Moist, yellow,
creamy at back
of tongue. Acid
taste.
Excess secretions,
sneezing, vomiting of
clear, watery phlegm
(with great thirst).
Diarrhea watery. Thin
watery blood with
menses. Polyuria
(diabetes), Leucorrhoea
discharge watery, starch
like.
Creamy discharges
(eyes, ears). Vomiting of
sour fluids. Morning
sickness. Sour smelling
stools (with mucus).
Yellow discharges
(eczema, leucorrhoea. .
Conditions of
Aggravations
Ameliorat
ions
Evenings.
Cool air.
Warmth.
Open air.
Pains move
from side to
side.
Open air.
Cold air.
Uncovering.
Touching.
Motion.
Cold drinks.
Pressure.
At Night.
Mornings.
Cold air.
Open air.
Thunderstorm.
Afternoon.
Evening.
Open air.
After eating.
Itching in bed.
Headache
(morning)
Warm
room.
Warm
weather.
Hot
drinks.
Light
pressure.
Friction.
Bending
over
double.
Evenings.
Warmth.
Pressure.
Warmth.
Warm
room.
Pressure.
44
Continue…
Table 2. Biochemic remedies
Medicine
Indicated
mainly in
State of
tongue
Nat sulph
Diabetes,
chills, pains.
Dirty green,
grey, brown.
Bitter taste.
Full of saliva.
Sil
Skin, spine &
mental
problems
Hardening of
tongue, ulcers.
Symptoms
Occurring
Discharges
Pus changes to
green on exposure
to light. Diarrhoea
green stools, urine
red, brick-like.
Diabetes, eczema
yellow watery.
Pustules, yellow
pus,loose
expectoration,
rattling of thick
yellow pus. Stools
foetid, offensive.
Pus & mucus in
urine. Foot sweat.
Conditions of
Aggravations
Ameliorations
Cold.
Dry and warm
Wet.
room.
Cold Weather.
Warm weather.
Water.
Night.
Full moon.
Open air.
Cold air.
Winter.
Heat.
Warm room.
Summer.
Indicators for Biochemic prescriptions:
The following medicines are generally indicated for the specified problems. It is
advisable to start the medicine with low potency (1x / 3x)** and proceed to higher potencies
(6x,12x,30x and even 200x) in case there is no improvement. However for severe problems,
higher potencies may be started off with.
Dosage generally is three times a day (4-6 pills at a time), taken dry on the tongue, on
an empty stomach. In case of acute problems - the medicine may be taken every 15 minutes
or half-an-hour.
In case there is no improvement even after 6-7 doses, either change the prescription or
consult a competent doctor.(still there is no substitute to the Materia medica / repertory)
*
Potentised remedies: designated as nX, nXH, nXD
45
Table 3. Biochemic indicators
SYMPTOM / PROBLEM / INDICATOR
Fever
Hair falling - thin hair strands
Hair falls due to weakness or ailments suffering from
Hair falls in bunches
Hair growth - to stimulate
Hair loss (bald spots) due to dandruff
Impotency
Jaundice
Leucorrhoea
Lumbago - aches worse by cold & better by heat &
pressure
Lumbago - pain at nape & cervical region
Lumbago - pain worse while resting, better by heat.
Mania (depressions, mental problems)
Mouth ulcers
Obesity (overweight)
Osteoarthritis
Pain - colic, abdominal, stomach
Paralysis
Piles (Itching, bleeding)
Pimples , acne
Sinusitis
Sleeplessness (Insomnia)
Stone in kidney
Suicidal disposition (wants to die)
Tonsillitis, pharyngitis, sore throat
Toothache
Typhoid (fever)
REMEDY INDICATED
Ferr phos & Kali phos
Nat mur
Cal phos
Sil
Calc phos & Sil
Kali sulph
Cal phos / Kali phos
Ferr phos, Kali mur, Nat sulph
Cal phos / Kali mur / Nat mur
Mag phos
Calc phos
Calc fluor
Kali phos
Ferr phos, Kali mur, Nat phos
Calc phos, Nat mur & Sil
Mag phos
Mag phos
Calc phos, Kali phos, Mag phos
Calc fluor
Calc phos
Kali mur & Sil
Kali phos & Ferr phos
Mag
phos
to
alleviate
Sil & Calc phos to dissolve stone
Kali phos
Kali mur
Kali phos
Ferr phos, Kali phos & Kali mur
pain
46
Vertigo (giddiness)
Weakness, general debility, exhaustion
Worms (children)
Kali phos
Kali phos
Nat phos & Kali mur
3.2. Types Of Homeopathy
There are different types of homeopathy dealing with classical, constitutional, and complex
means;
3.2.a. Classical homeopathy:
Classical homeopathy is dr. Samuel Hahnemann’s doctrine and system of healing based on
clearly, comprehensible principles. Scrupulous adherence to all of these principles as set out in
Hahnemann’s organ on of medicine is the authentic practice of classical homeopathy. Today there are
many different theories and ideas about the use of homoeopathic medicines, but the foundation and
science of classical homeopathy emanates from Hahnemann, and is distinct. It is based on the
recognition that health and disease are a change of state in each individual and depend on the
individual’s life force (i.e., vitality, or dynamic energy), state of susceptibility, and inherited
predispositions.
Classical homeopathy addresses the totality of the imbalanced individual. This involves
investigating and evaluating all the subjective and objective symptoms of the patient, in the context of
their life circumstances and environment. The individualizing characteristics, which distinguish one
individual’s mental, physical, emotional state from another’s, are scientifically analyzed indicating the
medicine needed to restore balance.
Classical prescribing is based on all the fundamental principles, including the law of similars—
giving the medicine, which on proving on healthy humans (the homeopathic equivalent of drug trials)
has shown the most similar characteristic symptom picture. One remedy is given at a time in the single,
smallest dose required to achieve a curative response. The remedy is never routinely repeated and never
combined with other remedies.
3.2.b. Constitutional Homeopathy:
Homeopathy is particularly effective in the treatment of long-term health problems. For example,
in cases of recurrent ear infections in children, although the child may obtain antibiotic therapy for the
acute ear infection, the problem may recur frequently, leading to a general state of impaired health. In
such a case, homeopathy can be used to strengthen the system to prevent the future infections.
47
3.2.c. Complex homoeopathy:
Complex homoeopathy therapy produces an initial worsening in a small proportion of patient.
The most worrying response is no change at all, and a reason must be sought for this. Treatment with
complex homoeopathy is rather like peeling an onion; at each consultation another layer is peeled away
revealing a slightly different clinical situation underneath. Therapy should be continuously modified to
accommodate this changing state of the patient.
Most complex homoeopathic preparations are available as drops and this means that it is fairly
easy to find the optimal dose by trial and error, in any particular situation. This is more difficult to do
with tablets.
Complex homoeopathy relies on wasting the toxins released in this way out through the skin,
urinary tract and colon .As a consequence it is not unusual for the urine to change color, the bowels to
become loose, or for the odor of the sweat to be unpleasant as the toxins are released. In some cases of
sinusitis the sinuses may start to stream or when treating inflammation of the external ear (otitis externa)
the ear may start to discharge.
3.3. Initiation of cure through artificial disease
Hahnemann elaborated on the simillimum principle in stating that the curative power of
medicines depends not only on the symptoms they produce, but that they are stronger.
Thus, ‘a disease can be cured most surely, thoroughly and swiftly, and permanently only by a
medicine producing a totality of symptoms in a person most completely similar, but stronger.
Hahnemann termed these stronger, similar symptoms thus induced, artificial disease. (Organon,
para 29). The weaker natural disease is then controlled and taken over by the stronger, artificial disease
since they cannot co-exist. This gives us another definition of a homoeopathic remedy – an ‘artificial
disease including agent’.
‘In selecting the appropriate homoeopathic remedy, the symptom picture of that remedy which
most closely matches the totality of the diseases symptoms is chosen. The medicine that has produced
upon a healthy human body the greatest number of symptoms similar to those of the disease being
treated is the only one that will cure.(Organon, para 25) .
Hahnemann recognized that tit is virtually impossible to match the disease symptoms exactly
.’Artificial disease brought on by medicine does not only have to be stronger in order to cure the natural
disease. Above all, it must have the greatest possible similarity to the natural disease being treated’
(Organon, para 34).
Complex disease
When two diseases occur simultaneously, however, they may coexist only if they are dissimilar;
they cannot mutually cure each other. Hahnemann termed such a condition as a complex disease .He
48
pointed out that even though they could not destroy each other, one disease might be suspended until the
other had run its course.
By the law of Similars, when two similar diseases occur simultaneously in the body, and one of
these diseases is stronger, then cure can occur. In other words, two similar diseases cannot coexist in the
same organism. Hahnemann exemplified this by pointing to the similarity between cowpox and
smallpox, the former rendering immunity from the latter, (Edward Jenner, 1796), and between measles
and whooping cough.
3.4. Mode of action
Although the ‘anti-homoeopathy’ groups accuse homoeopathic preparations to be placebo,
homoeopathic preparations still proved efficacy. Due to the absence of any biochemical active
component in homeopathic medicine we conclude that the changes observed are not due to any direct
pharmacological action of a conventional kind.
In homeopathy a conventional pharmacological action IS substituted with an enhancement of the
self vital force.
In an approach to find the action field of medicine, Hahnemann realized that every medicine has
its own characteristic and general actions which appeared as a group of symptoms. By matching those
symptoms with the corresponding symptom picture caused by a disease, this seems to encourage the
inner healing force (vital force) to self regain health and well being. i.e. a medicine which could cure a
sick person could cause the same symptom in a healthy person. Hence, proving were made by observing
symptoms developing in healthy individuals after giving them the medicine to be proved. Thereby, a
medicine given to a healthy individual will produce similar symptoms observed in disease state.
Hahnemann showed that the homeopathic medicine is effective because it acts like the disease
disturbing the vital force, where the symptoms are produced to queue this disease or spread the energy
of disturbance. Hence, the homeopathic principle depends on the opposing action of substance in
quantitatively different doses; and so, the action of the homeopathic medicine on the vital force is only
visible by its effects.
A biphasic homeopathic action arises from a single dose. Primary action represents the usual
pathogenic effect of the substance exacerbate acting those features of its drug picture that are present in
the patient. This primary action evokes the secondary action, which is a counter action of the organism’s
vital healing force. Yet on clinical and even sub clinical bases a primary action might precede the
curative counter action and in sensitive patient strong primary reaction could evoke even with the use of
extremely high dilution.
Therefore a therapeutic aggregation observed as the primary phase of the response to a
homeopathic prescription is not necessarily a feature of a good response since this primary action may
be sub clinical or a possible exceptional case of a non matching constitutional prescription to the
presented clinical picture.
Unwanted aggravations may also arise by a prescription similar enough to provoke a primary
reaction without stimulating a secondary response, and so no improvement features on any level, during
or after the event, will be observed.
49
As a conclusion if there is any dissimilarity between the reaction and the existing clinical picture
in the patient it is likely to be approving rather than an aggravation of any kind particularly if the
dissimilar features are obviously typical of the medicine given.
The time scale of an aggravation is unpredictable. Its onset can vary from few minutes up to few
weeks from prescription. As for the duration, it’s from a matter of minutes to, very rarely, matter of
months. No matter how aggravation is distressing, once it is identified and explanted it is usually
tolerated well than the original symptoms due to improvement in well being.
Since it is not guaranteed that aggravations will be entirely benign, it is better to use the simplest
possible conventional means to manage the aggravation rather than a new homeopathic prescription.
The body can only have one disease, as well as one pattern of disturbance, no matter how many
facets there are to this, also there is only one vital force, one organism, and it works as a whole. If a
stronger disease is introduced it will substitute the old disease. If the medicine is stronger than the
disease it might as well take over, the original pattern of symptoms will only be removed permanently if
the medicine is close enough in action to resonate with the original symptoms.
If there is not enough resonance, the original stimulus remains untouched and unresolved. The
medicine may be strong enough to supplement this with anew pattern, which may be more visible only
because it is more dominant. In this case, when the vital force recovers from the action of the medicine,
the original symptom pattern may reappear the symptoms were suppressed rather than caused therefore
the original disturbance is unresolved.
The new rhythm of the medicine may be so different as to exist side by side with the old rhythm,
creating a new joint pattern! (Fig. 2) This may be possible when the areas affected by the medicine and
by the disease are different,
E.g. one affects the respiratory system and the other affects the digestive system. This situation is
uncommon, as the disturbance and the medicine both affect the vital force, which reacts as a whole
through each level of the organism.
In summery the homoeopathic principle of cure is that one similar but stronger pattern is
imposed over another, so that it takes over. Cure is aided by the fact that the duration of the medicine is
limited, because it is potentized and kept to the minimum dose.
Cure is indeed permanent if the remedy chosen is similar enough to include the total symptom
picture and the exciting cause. If these are not covered, the disturbance is not truly solved because the
predisposition or weakness remains and so there is a recurrence when vitality again drops or the exciting
cause is met again.
3.5. The self – limiting action of a medicine
In disease the medicine acts because it has a similar field of action to the disease (symptom
picture), and resonates on these same areas of the vital force, encouraging the same action of the vital
50
force, which results in the outward movement of symptoms. This outward movement is clearly seen in
acute diseases, and gives them their self-limiting nature. In acute disease we can see that the selflimiting nature arises from the ability of the vital force to reach the ‘edge’ i.e. diseases end either in
death or elimination, as in the diarrhea and vomit of cholera, or the spots of measles and chicken pox. A
well-prescribed remedy following the laws of cure will strengthen the outward movement of the
symptoms, enhancing elimination. Thus there is a target to be achieved by the vital force, namely to
push symptoms outwards as an elimination.
Interference with the action of the vital force and the remedy is self – limiting when prescribed in
the single dose because the vital force is further disturbed by a substance whose nature so resembles the
disease that it can take over. It is the ability of the remedy to obtain a stronger reaction from the vital
force that enables the vital force to complete the action of elimination. It does this because the potency is
selected to be stronger than the disease, so the nature of substance is of less physiological level on to the
dynamic plane. And because the dose is so minimal there is none left over to continue force.
In acute illness we give a remedy and that is the end of the matter. The elimination is complete,
and there are no repercussions or correspondence to other factors of health it is a one off situation.
This does’nt happen, especially in children, but it is a theoretical situation because the vital force
is afflicted by miasmas in such a way that its function is restricted.
In the constitutional picture there are weak organs and there are latent states where previous
disease was unresolved - this is particularly so in the adult. The result is a lack of vitality and an inability
to complete the work of resolution. Aided by a remedy the vital force may restore harmony to a greater
degree, but a stronger stimulus may be required, this may be a further, higher dose of the same remedy,
or another, different remedy, depending on the symptom picture. We can see that the idea is still to
produce enough reaction at the acute level.
3.5.a. Susceptibility
Hahnemann and Kent use this term where Vithoulkas uses the word ‘resonance’, in modern
allopathic terminology
It is used to describe the vitality of a patient, in that he or she is more or less susceptible
(weakened) to the germs of a particular disease. In this last context it embraces the content of vitality, or
resistance to disease. However, in a homoeopathic context it is only used to imply resonance to the
remedy or to the exciting cause.
Susceptibility to the remedy determines the degree of reaction to that remedy. One who is most
susceptible to the remedy reacts easily to it, even in low potencies, whereas one who is least susceptible
will barely react at all and then perhaps only after repeat does, as in the proving. The choice of potency
will enforce the reaction to the remedy, so that one who is more susceptible may produce the same
results from lower potencies than one who is less susceptible. The least susceptible may not react at all
to the higher potencies, which need even greater resonance as there is even more dilution in the higher
potencies.
51
Susceptibility can be created by repetition of the dose. This is done in the proving as soon as the
vital force is touched it reacts, and that reaction immediately changes the situation. Hence, when
disturbed, the vital force accommodates the disturbance and moves on.
If the disturbance is an ongoing factor in the environment, i.e. a maintaining cause then part of
the vital force’s accommodation is to build a higher threshold of reaction. Thus the second dose must be
a stronger stimulus to achieve impact. This is one reason why we go up in potency if we repeat a dose.
After the first dose, susceptibility to that remedy or exciting cause may be less.
3.5.b. Susceptibility and required time for cure
Time should be given to observe cure after a given remedy to allow the secondary action to
occur. When another strong dose or repeated doses are given, the vital force is continually pulled back to
the point it left, until the resonating parts of the vital force eventually react and become more sensitive to
the stimulus because they are weakened, the process of cure is thus prolonged, because the vital force
continues to be irritated without allowing the changes to take place which would lessen the organism’s
susceptibility. In the proving we stop taking the pills once the symptoms start to appear and the vital
force is left undisturbed. In order to resolve the disturbance the symptoms keep on appearing in the
proving.
During treatment, this repetition of the dose can be dangerous because it creates greater
weakness in areas already vulnerable. This is one of only two occasions when homoeopathy can be
unsafe; the other is when too high a potency is used, when there is structural (pathological change
expressed in the symptoms. Here we also see why the homoeopath is cautious to accept that a remedy
has created no change. If the remedy has struck so deep that symptoms have not yet appeared, then the
vital force is reacting at a vulnerable level and has not yet appeared, then the vital force is reacting at a
vulnerable level and has not yet been able to begin to correct the disturbance. To create further
disturbance in such a case is undesirable.
When repeated, doses are given you will often notice that there is no reaction at all until the
dosing ceases. There may then be a very violent reaction. By continually stimulating the same point, an
artificial disease will be created or the original disease may be worsen. The vital force is not free to act
until the dosing ceases. The repeat stimulus may push the disturbance in to a more chronic level if it is
resonating on vulnerable weaknesses or, if this is not the case, deeper cure may result when the vital
force gets to work with more energy.
3.6. The speed of action of a medicine:
The speed of reaction to the medicine depends on:
● The nature of the medicine
● The vitality of the vital force
● The nature of the exciting cause
52
Where the interplay of these three factors will determine what we may expect from our treatment.
The nature of the medicine
Included in the character of a remedy is the speed with which it acts. Acute remedies such as
belladonna, aconite and apis mellifirae work very fast and, as the name acute signifies, they are of use in
self limiting situations, where they enhance the outward movement of the symptoms. Other remedies
have a slower reaction and are more suited to chronic disturbances. Examples of these might be silica,
plumbum or Calcarea, to name some of the slowest. On studying a medicine it is necessary to know the
pattern of symptoms it products, and the depth and speed of action of which it is capable. In other words,
what is expected when a remedy is given to a patient.
Potency Affect Toxicology
The strength of a remedy may be enhanced or lessened by the potency used. Higher potencies
will act with greater speed than lower potencies, because the lower potencies are working nearer the
physiological or physical level.
The Vitality Of The Vital Force
A strong healthy vital force will react with speed, whereas a weakened vital force will act slowly
because its areas of vulnerability are deep in organs and in metabolic process. An indication of the vital
force may be gained by looking at the types and levels of symptoms being produced in the total
symptom picture.
The Nature Of The Exciting Cause
The exciting cause acts as a trigger. A patient may be susceptible to large doses, and will react
strongly and quickly if the vital force is strong if the vital force is strong. In another patient there may
not be a sudden response because the vital force is weaker, but because of the strength of the exciting
cause, when the response comes it will be a much deeper illness. Sometimes, even if the exciting cause
is mild, the weak vital force will still react on the organ level but this time it produce a milder illness,
which is of course serious enough, but less acute than the deeper one, and so it is more chronic.
3.7. Potencies
Potencies are unique feature of homoeopathic practice. Potencies are energized dilution (or
attenuations) of the mother tinctures of homeopathic remedies. Potency Numbers which follow the name
53
of the homeopathic remedies indicate the number of sequential or serial dilutions and successions
(potentisation steps) of the number of the original mother tincture. It follows, therefore, the greater the
potency number the greater the dilution. Potency numbers must be qualified by denoting the potency
series in terms of the decimal or centesimal series. Suffixes to the Potency Numbers may be:
X (or x) denoting serial dilutions in the ratio of 1 part mother tincture to 9 parts of a solution of alcohol
and water, that is dilutions in the ratio of 1:10 – the decimal series of potencies.
C (no suffix in UK) denoting serial dilution in the ration of 1 part mother tincture to 99 parts of a
solution of alcohol and water, that is the ratio of 1:100 - the centesimal series of potencies.
Thus for example, we have:
6x
the sixth decimal potency = 1x 10-6
or
12x
the twelfth decimal potency = 1x 10-12
or
24x
the twenty-fourth decimal potency= 1x 10-24
or
6C (or 6)
the sixth centesimal potency= 1x 10-12
or
30C (or 30)
the thirtieth centesimal potency= 1x 10-60
or
200C (or 200) the two hundredth centesimal potency= 1x 10-400
or
1000C (or1M) the one thousandth centesimal potency = 1x 10-2000
Nature of Potencies
‘Potency’ means literally power or strength, and succession is shaking a serial dilution. In the
potentisation procedure, succession energies the dilution and this is stored as potential energy. The view
generally held is that this energy is released from the infinitesimally small, catalytic homoeopathic dose
as kinetic energy, activating or stimulating the body’s own natural defense mechanism to affect the cure.
It might be assumed that the higher the potency (and hence the higher dilution) the greater the (healing)
power, but although this often the case, it is not strictly true, as we must consider this power in terms of
the correct choice of potency for a particular case. Given the selection of the correct remedy in a case,
potencies may modify or enhance the therapeutic activity of the remedy. It is, therefore, a powerful tool
in the hands of the practitioner. Whilst potency is important in homoeopathic prescribing, the choice of
the correct remedy according to the Law of Similars is of prime importance. Hence, if the correct
remedy is chosen to treat an illness it may lead to some improvement in the illness whatever the potency
prescribed. On the other hand, an incorrect remedy will be of no value whatever the potency prescribed.
As Hahnemann discovered, potencies, through their high dilutions, overcome the often-toxic
nature of the concentrated (allopathic) dose. Indeed, this was his original aim. The modifying or
enhancing influence of high dilutions on therapeutic activity proved subsequently to be of equal benefit.
54
Common potencies
The potencies most commonly prescribed universally are:
Dilution
VERY HIGH
HIGH
MEDUIM
LOW
CM
1 x 10
- 200,000
50M
1 x 10
-50,000
10M
1 x 10
-20,000
1M (1,000C) 1 x 10
-2,000
200C
1 x 10
- 400
30C
1 x 10
- 60
30X
1 x 10
- 30
24X
1 x 10
-24
6C
1 x 10
-12
12X
1 x 10
- 12
6X
1 x 10
-6
(1 in 1 million)
3X
1 x 10
-3
(1 in 1,000)
Those underlined are prime potencies and the most used (6X, 6C, 30C, 200C, 1M) in practice. In
France, potencies of 4C, 5C, 7C, 9C and 30C are most favored. French law does not permit potencies
above 30C.
55
Gemmotherapy preparation and Lithotherapy preparation are prescribed in potencies of 2X
and 8X respectively.
In order to have supplies of prime potencies freshly prepared and quickly available, it is common
practice in homoeopathic pharmacies to hold pre-potencies or stock potencies of potency numbers one
less than the prime potencies, that is 5x, 5c, 29c, 199c, etc. Thus only one potentisation step necessary to
produce the prime potency.
Samuel Hahnemann favored the use of potencies 6X, 12X, up to 30C. He did, however,
experiment with potencies up to 50C in the latter part of his career.
Cook’s Hypothesis
The commonly accepted view that the prime potencies of 6X, 6C, 30C, 200C and 1M correspond
to levels of optimum therapeutic activity is borne, out by research and clinical evidence. Jones and
Jenkins (RLHH, 1983) research with wheat and yeast growth in the presence of different potencies
supported this view. Then why did Hahnemann choose potencies of 3, 6, 12, 24 and 30 in the first place?
T.M. Cook has pointed out, (Brit. Hom J. 1982) that these potencies are sub units or multiples of the
numbers 6 and 12. Hahnemann was influenced by the duodecimal system of counting as used in his
days. The coinage of Saxony (and most other European states at that time) was based on the gold
Friedrichs D’Or which had six lesser value coins. In Britain, still we have twelve inches to one foot and,
before 1969, twelve pence made one shilling. It may be assumed, therefore, that Hahnemann chose these
potency numbers as logical steps, since the numbers 6, 12, 24, etc. were in every day contemporary use.
If this is valid, then why are commonly prescribed higher potencies (200, 1M, CM) based on the
metric or decimal system in units of tne? Cook has suggested that higher were not introduced until the
late 19th and early 20th century, by which time the metric system had been generally adopted in
medicine and science. It is logical then that Kent et al would specify these metric numbers for higher
potencies into homoeopathic practice.
One question remains. If Hahnemann used the old duodecimal system is prescribing, then why
did he specify metric dilutions in the preparation of the medicine (1:10, 1:100)? Hahnemann regarded
the practice of homoeopathy as an art- his Organon, for example, was entitled The Organon of the
Healing Art. On the other hand, he pointed out in the Organon that ht e preparation of homoeopathic
medicines was as ‘exact science’. Thus, it is logical that he chose potency numbers in everyday use as an
art form, whereas he chose the universal scientific metric system for the scientific preparation of
potencies.
Potencies in Prescribing
We have learned that we view acute disease as a condition with sudden onset, clearly defined,
severe symptoms and relatively short duration. Although there is some difference of opinion, as a
general rule, these condition are treated with low potencies at a high frequency of dosage,(for example,
hourly, three times a day).
56
Chronic disease in this context is viewed as a more deep seated, probably inherited disease, with
ill-defined symptoms and time of onset of the disease and long lasting. As a general rule, these
conditions are treated with high potencies at a low frequency of dosage (for example, once a week, once
a month).
However, these high potencies may, in certain circumstances, be preceded by prescribing a low
potency.
Hughesian and Kentian Approach
Followers of Dr. Richard Hughes in England believed approach to prescribing at the physical
level on a study of the totality of symptoms, low potencies. On the other hand, devotes of Dr. James
Tyler Kent in America prescribed high potencies on a constitutional basis for a wide range of
conditions- concentrating on the emotional and psychological levels of the patient (and with very high
potencies, even the spiritual level). Thus, the same patient may receive the same remedy (his or her
constitutional remedy) for different illnesses.
Today, many homoeopaths use either the Hughesian or the Kentian approach most successfully,
whilst others take a broader view which encompasses both approaches, depending on individual nature
of the case. There is massive clinical evidence of successful treatment with either or both low or high
potencies over 150 years.
3.8. Laws of cure
Homoeopathy is not simply concerned with the totality of symptoms of a disease, but with the
patient as a whole person, constitutionally-physically, mentally and emotionally. The homoeopathic
practitioner needs to know the conditions which make the symptoms better or worse (modalities). The
patient’s medical history and that of his or her family is also taken into account, with miasmic
considerations in mind. The following are the important features of homeotherapy.
Hering’s Laws Of Cure
Dr. Constantine Hering, a contemporary of Samuel Hahnemann, founder of organized
homoeopathy in America, author of Guiding Symptoms of The Homoeopathic Materia Medica,
enunciated three principles of homoeopathic healing process.
These principles are known as Hering’s Laws of Direction of Cure. They provide useful
guidelines for the Homoeopathic practitioner in evaluating a patient’s total state of health and
monitoring his or her progress.
57
First Principle
Healing progresses from the deepest part of the body-the mental and emotional levels and the
organs- to the external parts, such as the skin and extremities.
The different ‘depths’ of symptoms, and their effect on health, in descending order, have been
given by Vithoulkas (a leading Greek homoeopath) as in table3.
Table 3 : Mental and Emotional symptoms for different physical ailments.
Physical Ailments
Brain
Heart
Endocrine
Liver
Lung
Kidney
Bone
Muscle
Skin
Mental
Suicidal Depression
Apathy
Sadness
Anguish
Phobias
Anxiety
Irritability
Dissatisfaction
----
Emotional
Total confusion
Destructive Delirium
Paranoid ideas
Delusions
Lethargy
Dullness
Lack of Concentration
Forgetfulness
Absentmindedness
This table is also useful guide to evaluating the progress (or otherwise) of the patient during
treatment.
Second Principle
As healing progresses, Herring states that symptoms are cured in the reverse order of their
appearance.
Third Principle
Healing progresses from the upper parts of the body to the lower parts of the body.
Homoeopathic aggravations may occur in accordance with Hering’s Law, which is quite
acceptable, providing there is a corresponding improvement in the symptoms at deeper levels, most
recent symptoms and the upper parts of the body.
Healing may be more noticeable in deep seated chronic conditions than in acute conditions of
short duration.
58
Biphasic Response Of Drugs (ARNDT-SCHULTZ LAW)
There is a recognized principle in pharmacology called the "biphasic response of drugs."1 Rather
than a drug simply having increased effects as its dose becomes larger, research has consistently shown
that exceedingly small doses of a substance will have the opposite effects of large doses.
The two phases of a drug's action (thus the name "biphasic") are dose-dependent. For instance, it
is widely recognized that normal medical doses of atropine block the parasympathetic nerves, causing
mucous membranes to dry up, while exceedingly small doses of atropine cause increased secretions to
mucous membranes.
This pharmacological principle was concurrently discovered in the 1870s by two separate
researchers, Hugo Schulz, a conventional scientist, and Rudolf Arndt, a psychiatrist and homeopath.
Initially called the Arndt-Schulz law, this principle is still widely recognized, as witnessed by the fact
that it is commonly listed in medical dictionaries under the definition of "law."
More specifically, these researchers discovered that weak stimuli accelerate physiological
activity, medium stimuli inhibit physiological activity, and strong stimuli halt physiological activity. For
example, very weak concentrations of iodine, bromine, mercuric chloride, and arsenious acid will
stimulate yeast growth, medium doses of these substances will inhibit yeast growth, and large doses will
kill the yeast.
In the 1920s, conventional scientists who tested and verified this biphasic response termed the
phenomenon "hormesis," and dozens of studies were published in a wide variety of fields to confirm this
biological principle.2
In the past two decades there has again been a resurgence of interest in this pharmacological law,
and now hundreds of studies in numerous areas of scientific investigation have verified it.3 Because
these studies have been performed by conventional scientists who are typically unfamiliar with
homeopathic medicine, they have not tested or even considered testing the ultra-high dilutions
commonly used in homeopathy. However, their research has consistently shown very significant effects
from such small microdoses that even the researchers express confusion and surprise.
Reference to this research on the Arndt-Schulz law and hormesis is important for validating
homeopathic research because it demonstrates the evidence for the important biphasic responses and
microdose effects that lie at the heart of homeopathy. This research is readily available to physicians and
scientists yet is often ignored or not understood. This law confirms Hahnemann’s Homoeopathic
principles of the infinitesimal dose, that is the inversion of the effectiveness of a medicine as a function
of the dose.
Clinical Research:
People are often confused by research, not only because it can be overly technical but because
some studies show that a therapy works and other studies shows that it doesn't. To solve this problem, a
recent development in research is used, called a "meta-analysis," which is a systematic review of a body
of research that evaluates the overall results of experiments.
59
In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths,
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."
Specifically, they found that:
--13 of 19 trials showed successful treatment of respiratory infections,
--6 of 7 trials showed positive results in treating other infections,
--5 of 7 trials showed improvement in diseases of the digestive system,
--5 of 5 showed successful treatment of hay fever,
--5 of 7 showed faster recovery after abdominal surgery,
--4 of 6 promoted healing in treating rheumatological disease,
--18 of 20 showed benefit in addressing pain or trauma,
--8 of 10 showed positive results in relieving mental or psychological
problems, and
--13 of 15 showed benefit from miscellaneous diagnoses.
Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic
medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the 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 of these natural medicines, suggesting that the
better designed and performed the studies were, the higher the likelihood that the medicines were found
to be effective. With this knowledge, the researchers of the meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded,
"The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a
regular treatment for certain indications."
There are different types of homeopathic clinical research, some of which provide
individualization of remedies; which is the hallmark of the homeopathic methodology; some of which
give a commonly prescribed remedy to all people with a similar ailment, and some of which give a
combination of homeopathic medicines to people with a similar condition. While one can perform good
research using any of these methods, there are certain issues that researchers have to be aware of and
sensitive to in order to obtain the best objective results.
For instance, if a study does not individualize a homeopathic medicine to people suffering from a
specific ailment and the results of the study show that there was no difference between those given this
remedy and those given a placebo, the study does not disprove homeopathy; it simply proves that this
one remedy is not effective in treating every person suffering from that ailment, each of whom may have
a unique pattern of symptoms that requires an individual prescription.
In describing specifics of the following studies using homeopathic medicines, differentiation has
been made between studies that allowed for individualization of medicines and those that did not.
Clinical Research with Individualized Care
60
Some people incorrectly assume that research using homeopathic medicines is impossibly
complicated because each medicine must be individualized to the patient. The following studies
disprove this simplistic belief.
A recent clinical trial evaluating homeopathic medicine was a unique study of the treatment of
asthma. Researchers at the University of Glasgow used conventional allergy testing to discover which
substances these asthma patients were most allergic to. Once this was determined, the subjects were
randomized into treatment and placebo groups. Those patients chosen for treatment were given the 30c
potency of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common substance was house dust
mite). The researchers called this unique method of individualizing remedies "homeopathic
immunotherapy" (homeopathic medicines are usually prescribed based on the patient's idiosyncratic
symptoms, not on laboratory analysis or diagnostic categories). Subjects in this experiment were
evaluated by both homeopathic and conventional physicians.
This study showed that 82% of the patients given a homeopathic medicine improved, while only
38% of patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. When asked if they felt the
patient received the homeopathic medicine or the placebo, both the patients and the doctors tended to
guess correctly.
The experiment was relatively small, with only 24 patients. As noted, for statistically significant
results, small experiments must show a large difference between those treated with a medicine and those
given a placebo. Such was the case in this study.
Along with this recent asthma study, the authors performed a meta-analysis, reviewing all the
data from three studies they performed on allergic conditions, which totaled 202 subjects. The
researchers found a similar pattern in the three studies. Improvement began within the first week and
continued through to the end of the trial four weeks later. The results of this meta-analysis were so
substantial (P=0.0004) that the authors concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or controlled
clinical trials do not. Because modern science is based on controlled clinical trials, it is a more likely
conclusion that homeopathic medicines are effective.
Another recent study, published in the American journal Pediatrics, tested homeopathic
medicine for the treatment of a condition recognized to be the most serious public health problem today,
childhood diarrhea. Over 5 million children die each year as the result of diarrhea, mostly in
nonindustrialized countries. Conventional physicians prescribe oral rehydration therapy (ORT, a salt
solution that helps children maintain fluid balance), but this treatment does not fight the infection that
underlies the diarrhea.
Conducted in Nicaragua in association with the University of Washington and the University of
Guadalajara, this randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 81 children showed that an
individually chosen remedy provided statistically significant improvement of the children's diarrhea as
compared to those given a placebo. Children given the homeopathic remedy were cured of their
infection 20% faster than those given a placebo, and the sicker children responded most dramatically to
the homeopathic treatment. A total of 18 different remedies were used in this trial, individually chosen
based on each child's symptoms.
A study of the homeopathic treatment of migraine headache was conducted in Italy. Sixty
patients were randomized and entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients regularly
61
filled out a questionnaire on the frequency, intensity, and characteristics of their head pain. They were
prescribed a single dose of a 30c remedy at four separate times over two-week intervals. Eight remedies
were considered, and prescribers were allowed to use any two with a patient. While only 17% of patients
given a placebo experienced relief of their migraine pain, an impressive 93% of patients given an
individualized homeopathic medicine experienced good results.
A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed on 175 Dutch children
suffering from recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. Children in the treatment group were
prescribed a "constitutional medicine" for their overall health as well as acute medicines to treat the
acute respiratory infections they developed. The study found that the children given homeopathic
medicines had a 16% better daily symptom score than children given a placebo.
This study also found that the number of children given a placebo who had to undergo
adenoidectomy was 24% higher than for the children given homeopathic remedies. A 54.8% reduction
in the use of antibiotics in the children given homeopathic medicines was reported, while the children
who received a placebo experienced a 37.7% reduction in antibiotic use. (This reduction in both groups
was determined to be the result of the normal growth and development of the child, dietary changes° the
study provided written nutritional advice to the parents and the change in expectations as the result of
being under medical care.)
The statistical possibility of these results happening by chance was 6% (P=0.06). Because
statistical significance in science is recognized when there is a 5% or less chance of results happening at
random, the researchers concluded that homeopathic medicine seem to add little to the treatment of
upper respiratory tract infections. This more conservative conclusion appeared to be influenced by the
fact that the authors sought and received publication of their study in the British Medical Journal. They
should have more accurately said that homeopathic medicines provided benefit to children with upper
respiratory infections, but there is a small chance (6%) that these good results happened at random.
Considering the closeness of these results to 5%, considering the other improvements in the
homeopathic group's health, and considering the increasingly widespread desire to avoid antibiotics, it
makes sense for physicians and parents to consider seeking homeopathic care for children's upper
respiratory infections.
Another study that involved individualized homeopathic care was in the treatment of rheumatoid
arthritis. The study involved 46 patients. Two homeopathic physicians prescribed individually chosen
medicines to each patient, though only half of them were given the real remedy, while the other half
were given a placebo. The study found that 82% of those given an individualized homeopathic remedy
experienced some relief of symptoms, while 21% of those given a placebo experienced a similar degree
of relief.
One other very interesting trial that utilized semi-individualization of care was in the treatment of
primary fibromyalgia (also called fibrositis). Patients with fibrositis were admitted into a trial in which
homeopathic physicians chose between three possible remedies, Arnica, Rhus tox, and Bryonia. Half of
the patients were given one of these remedies, and the other half were given a placebo. There was no
discernible difference between these groups. However, as an integral part of the experiment's design, a
panel of homeopaths evaluated the accuracy of each prescription. This analysis found that those patients
whom the panel considered to have received the correct remedy experienced a statistically significant
improvement in symptoms as compared to those patients given the "incorrect" remedy or the placebo.
62
These same researchers next conducted a more sophisticated trial in the treatment of primary
fibromyalgia. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial admitted only those patients who fit
the symptoms of Rhus tox. The researchers found that this constituted 42% of the patients interviewed.
One-half of these 30 patients were given Rhus tox 6c during the first phase of the experiment, while the
other half were given a placebo. During the second phase, those patients initially given the medicine
were given a placebo, and those patients initially given a placebo were now given the homeopathic
remedy. Researchers determined at the beginning of the experiment that improvement in pain and
sleeplessness were the outcome measures most important in evaluating the results of this trial, and the
results showed that 25% more of the patients experienced pain relief when taking the homeopathic
remedy compared to when they were given a placebo and almost twice as many had improved sleep
when taking the remedy.
This type of crossover design is considered a sophisticated type of research because it compares
each person when using a treatment with the same person when using a placebo. Most other research
compares two supposedly similar groups of people, but researchers commonly acknowledge that it is
difficult and perhaps impossible to get two exactly similar groups of people. The limitation of the
crossover design for homeopathic treatment, however, is that most homeopathic medicines provide longterm benefits, so that once a person stops taking a homeopathic remedy he or she may still continue to
improve, even in the placebo stage of the trial. Low-potency medicines, such as the 6c used in the above
described experiment, generally have short-acting effects, while higher potency medicines generally
have increasingly longer-term effects.
Clinical Research with Nonindividualized Care
In addition to the studies on homeopathy in which individualized remedies are prescribed, there
is also a body of research testing single remedies to people given in a non-individualized manner. Such
research is potentially problematic because homeopaths acknowledge that the remedies require some
degree of individualization to be effective. The results of a nonindividualized study, either positive or
negative, can be misunderstood by people who do not know basic principles of the homeopathic method.
One study using nonindividualized homeopathic treatment was sponsored by the British
government during World War II and was conducted in 1941-42 on volunteers whose skin was burned
with mustard gas. The study showed the efficacy of Mustard gas 30c as a preventive or Rhus tox 30c
and Kali bichromicum 30c as therapy. The study was double-blind, placebo-controlled, and was
conducted at two centers (London and Glasgow), both showing similarly positive results. A more recent
analysis of the data further substantiated the statistical significance of this study.
It should, however, be mentioned that the researchers also tested the efficacy of Opium 30c,
Cantharis 30c, and Variolinium 30c, none of which provided any noticeable benefit. If this trial had
tested only these medicines, the researchers might have concluded that homeopathic medicines were
ineffective in treating mustard gas burns. Finding the correct remedy is the key to making homeopathy
work.
Some skeptics and journalists inaccurately report that homeopathy is primarily used to treat
minor health problems. Homeopaths today primarily treat various chronic ailments for which
conventional medicine has not provided effective treatment. One example of a chronic and serious
problem shown by a controlled study to be effective treated by homeopathy is diabetic retinitis (retinitis
is a common complication of diabetes in which there is an inflammation of the retina causing
63
impairment of sight, perversion of vision, swelling, discharge from the eye, and sometimes hemorrhages
into the retina). This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 60 patients used Arnica 5c.
The results of this study showed that 47% of patients given Arnica 5c experienced improvement in
central blood flow to the eye, while only 1% of patients given the placebo experience this improvement.
Further, 52% of patients given Arnica 5c experienced improvement in blood flow to other parts of the
eye, while only 1.5% of those given the placebo experienced a similar degree of improvement.
The best-selling flu remedy in France is actually a homeopathic medicine. Anas barbariae 200c,
commonly marketed under the trade name Oscillococcinum TM , is also popular in the U.S. and is
effective primarily at the first signs of influenza. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 478
patients suffering from influenza was conducted, making this the largest trial yet performed testing a
homeopathic medicine. This trial showed that almost twice as many people who took the homeopathic
remedy got over the flu after 48 hours as compared to those given a placebo.
Although this remedy was found to work for all age groups, it was considerably more effective
for people under 30 than for those over 30. However, it was not found to be effective when subjects had
severe flu symptoms. In severe cases of the flu, a more individualized homeopathic remedy may be
indicated.
In addition to various studies on human health, there have also been some animal studies. British
researchers have conducted trials showing that homeopathic medicines, specifically Caulophyllum 30c,
could lower the rate of stillbirths in pigs. Pigs given a placebo had 103 births and 27 stillbirths (20.8%),
while those given Caulophyllum 30c had 104 births and 12 stillbirths (10.3%).
Not all studies show efficacy of homeopathic medicines, not because they don't work but mostly
because the studies were poorly designed. One such study tested a single homeopathic medicine in the
treatment of osteoarthritis. This study consisted of 36 patients, of whom one third were given Rhus tox
6c, one third were given a conventional drug (fenoprofen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug), and
one third were given a placebo. Those patients given the conventional drug experienced some relief of
symptoms, but those given the homeopathic remedy and the placebo had a similar lack of response to
treatment. While some people would erronously conclude that homeopathic medicines are ineffective in
the treatment of osteoarthritis, it would be more appropriate and accurate to conclude that Rhus tox 6c is
an ineffective remedy when given without individualization to people with osteoarthritis.
One of the confounding variables from this trial was that 2 of the 12 patients given the
homeopathic medicine were withdrawn from the trial because they experienced an aggravation of
symptoms after taking the medicine. Because homeopathic medicines sometimes cause a temporary
increase in chronic symptoms before significant improvement, it was disappointing that the researchers
did not follow their status. Because this trial lasted only two weeks, it did not allow time for the
homeopathic remedy to be adequately evaluated. If, for instance, these 2 patients experienced the
significant relief that is common after an initial aggravation of symptoms, the results of the trial would
have been different.
Further, it is unfair to compare a fast-acting conventional drug that has side effects with a slower
acting homeopathic medicine that is considerably safer. Finally and of great significance is the fact that
while Rhus tox is a common remedy for rheumatoid arthritis, it is less common for osteoarthritis.
64
Clinical Research with Homeopathic Combination Remedies
Homeopathic combination remedies are formulas in which several homeopathic substances are
mixed together into one remedy. This untraditional approach to using homeopathic medicine is
commercially popular in many countries. While these remedies are not thought by homeopaths to be as
effective as individually chosen medicines, they do work and research has verified this. Yet, homeopaths
consistently find that single homeopathic medicines have the potential to truly cure a person's disease,
while combination medicines at best provide safe but temporary relief of symptoms.
The same researchers who conducted the study on asthma earlier described also performed a
study on the treatment of hay fever. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study prescribed a 30c
potency of a combination remedy made from 12 common pollens. The results showed that those subjects
taking the homeopathic remedy had six times fewer symptoms than those given the placebo. Both
groups of subjects were allowed to use an "escape" medicine (an antihistamine) if their remedy didn't
work adequately. The study showed that homeopathic subjects needed this medicine half as often as did
those given the placebo.
Another example of significant results from a homeopathic combination remedy was in the
treatment of women during their ninth month of pregnancy. Ninety women were given the 5c potency of
the following remedies: Caulophyllum, Arnica, Cimicifuga, Pulsatilla, and Gelsemium. They were given
doses of this combination remedy twice daily during the ninth month. This double-blind, placebocontrolled study showed that women given the homeopathic medicines experienced a 40% (!) shorter
labor than those given a placebo. Also, the women given the placebo had four times (!) as many
complications of labor as those given the homeopathic medicines.
One of the limitations of research on combination remedies is that the results do not reveal
whether the effective treatment came from one specific medicine or from the unique combination of
remedies. A recent study of 22 healthy women in their first pregnancies tested Caulophyllum, one of the
medicines used in the study cited above, which was administered in the 7c potency during the active
phase of labor (one dose per hour repeated for a maximum of 4 hours). The time of labor for those
women given the homeopathic medicine was 38% shorter than for women given a placebo. This trial
was not double-blind; however, the researchers recently completed a double-blind trial and confirmed
their earlier results.
A popular homeopathic external application marketed as TraumeelTM has been studied for its
efficacy in the treatment of sprained ankles. This combination of 14 remedies in 2x to 6x potencies was
given to subjects with sprained ankles. After 10 days, 24 of the 33 patients who were given the
homeopathic medicine were pain-free, while 13 of 36 patients given a placebo experienced a similar
degree of relief. This same medicine was also used in the treatment of traumatic hemarthrosis (joint
swelling) and was shown to significantly reduce healing time as compared to a placebo. Objective
measurements of joint swelling and movement and evaluation of the synovial fluid at injury were
assessed.
A study of 61 patients with varicose veins was performed double-blind and placebo-controlled.
Three doses of a popular German combination of eight homeopathic medicines were given daily for 24
days. Measures were venous filling time, leg volume, and subjective symptoms. The study found that
65
venous filling time improved in those given the homeopathic medicines by 44%, while it deteriorated in
the placebo group by 18%. Other measures also had significant differences.
In addition to the various clinical studies on humans, there has also been some research using
homeopathic medicines to improve the health of animals. German researchers have shown that dairy
cows given Sepia 200c experienced significantly fewer complications of birth than those given a
placebo. Low-potency (1x to 6x) combinations of Lachesis, Pulsatilla, and Sabina, or Lachesis,
Echinacea, and Pyrogenium, along with Caulophyllum given to pigs had preventive and therapeutic
effects on infections (inflammation of the breasts and the uterus) as well as on diarrhea in the piglets.
Not all clinical studies on homeopathic combination medicines find efficacy of treatment, but
there are often important factors that explain the failure. A Canadian study on the treatment of plantar
warts is one such example. This randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 162 patients
prescribed three medicines to each patient (Because the trial did not mix the remedies together, it is not
completely accurate to call the use of these remedies a combination. It is more precise to consider it
"polypharmacy," the use of several medicines). The remedies used were Thuja 30c, Antimonium crud 7c
and Nitric acid 7c. Thuja was taken once a week, and the other two remedies were taken once a day. The
trial lasted six weeks. The results showed that there was no noticeable difference between those subjects
given the homeopathic medicines and those given a placebo.
Many homeopaths may be initially surprised at the result of this trial because they consider these
remedies commonly effective in the treatment of warts. But while the remedies may be effective for
treating warts, they are not necessarily effective for all types of warts or in all people. A recent study of
homeopathic treatment for various types of warts found that 18 of 19 people with plantar warts were
cured in, on average, 2.2 months. The most common remedy was Ruta, prescribed to 12 of the 19
patients. Thuja was prescribed for only 3 patients, and Antimonium crud was prescribed for 2 patients.
This study teaches us that individualization and the use of well-chosen remedies are necessary
for most effective treatment.
One additional note about research using homeopathic combination medicines: The homeopathic
literature refers to the fact that some remedies are antidoted by other remedies. While the medicines in
the Canadian trial are not known to antidote each other, homeopaths acknowledge that our
understanding of which remedies antidote each other is somewhat primitive (for a listing of which
remedies antidote each other, see the appendix in Kent's Repertory or in the Indian edition of Boericke's
Pocket Manual of Materia Medica with Repertory). Homeopathic research must, therefore, be aware of
this possibility so that conclusions from research are not overstated.
Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness Issues:
Another factor that will greatly influence the inclusion of homeopathic care within managed care
is the scientific evaluation of homeopathic practice. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests
that homeopathic medicines are effective, as two comprehensive meta-analyses have shown. The most
recent meta-analysis evaluated 89 placebo-controlled and/or randomized trials and found that patients
given a homeopathic medicine were 2.45 times more likely to experience a therapeutic benefit than
those given a placebo.
66
Although some studies have been successfully replicated two times, three times, and even 11
times, other replications have not shown consistent efficacy. Of those studies that have shown some
consistent positive results, only one has been replicated by separate and independent bodies of
researchers. Replication of research is absolutely necessary for homeopathy to be taken seriously, both
by conventional physicians and by managed care organizations.
One of the few studies that compared homeopathic treatment versus conventional medical
treatment was recently published in an AMA journal. This study compared results in the treatment of
vertigo, with half of the subjects given a homeopathic medicine (a combination of four homeopathic
medicine mixed together) and half given a conventional drug (betahistine). The study showed that those
given the homeopathic medicine experienced at least as good results as those given the conventional
drug, though the homeopathic medicine was considerably safer and less expensive.
Besides studies that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, there is also a need for more
studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care. Of the studies that have already been
conducted, there is presently positive evidence indicating that homeopathic care is more cost-effective
than conventional and other alternative care, though more rigorous work is needed in this area as well.
One study conducted by the French government in 1991 showed a significantly reduced cost
from homeopathic care versus conventional medical care. The totality of costs associated with
homeopathic care per physician was approximately one-half of the totality of care provided by
conventional primary care physicians. However, because homeopathic physicians, on average, saw
significantly fewer patients due to the more labor intensive tendency of homeopathic care, the overall
cost per patient under homeopathic care was still a significant 15% less. It is also interesting to note that
these savings appear to increase the longer a physician has been using homeopathy. A follow-up study
in 1996 confirmed these results.
This survey also noted that the number of paid sick leave days by patients under the care of
homeopathic physicians were 3.5 times less (598 days/year) than patients under the care of general
practitioners (2,017 days/year). These figures suggest further benefit and savings to the homeopathic
approach to care.
Homeopathic medicines are reimbursable under the French health care system, in part because
they cost considerably less than conventional drugs (on average, the cost of a homeopathic medicine is 7
French francs versus 23.00 French francs for conventional drugs). Although homeopathic medicines in
France represent 5% of all medicines prescribed by physicians, they represent only 1.2% of all drug
reimbursements due to their lower cost per prescription.
Another study in Seattle, Washington, which compared the utilization and cost of homeopathic,
naturopathic, and acupuncture services found that homeopathic care was the least costly and that patient
visits to homeopaths were less than to other alternative care professionals (this study, however, did not
concurrently compare or evaluate patient visits or costs for conventional medical care).
The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital conducted an audit of a sample of their patients during
a three-week period. A total of 541 questionnaires were handed out, 506 returned, and 499 were
analyzed. This survey found that 63% of patients had their complaint for more than five years. Of the
patients who were on conventional medications when they initially sought homeopathic care, 29% had
67
stopped and an additional 32% had decreased their medication, while only 4% increased their
medication. Sixty-two percent indicated that their main complaint had moderately or very much
improved compared to their status before treatment at the homeopathic hospital.
This study, like others before it, indicate that the vast majority of complaints seen by homeopaths
are for chronic, long-term illness. Because these studies showed significant improvement in patient
health and in reduction of medication, this data is of special interest to managed care companies.
Additional evidence of good results of successful and potentially cost-effective treatment with
homeopathic medicines was shown by the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital which conducted an audit of
100 consecutive patients. They found that 81% had a condition for which conventional medical
treatment was not effective and for which 47% had seen a specialist. After one year, 60% experienced
significant improvement in the condition about which they were most concerned, 49% had a sustained
improvement in their quality of life, and 37% managed a sustained reduction in their conventional
medications. Other smaller studies have also confirmed the cost- effectiveness of homeopathic care.
One pilot study in Great Britain suggested that doctors practicing homeopathic medicine issued
fewer prescriptions and at a lower cost than their conventional medical colleagues, while another pilot
study in Germany evaluated a single homeopathic dentist's practice and suggested that it was more costeffective than conventional dental care .
One other example of a cost benefit to homeopathic care was witnessed in a small study of the
homeopathic treatment for infertility. This study showed that homeopathic care for infertility was 30
times less expensive per successful delivery than the match comparison group given conventional care.
Despite these various large and small studies, managed care organizations tend to remain
unfamiliar with these investigations, and even when they become knowledgeable of them tend to
demand more evidence.
Even when clinical and cost-effectiveness studies suggest benefit from homeopathic medicines,
some managed care executives may still remain skeptical until basic science investigations posit
compelling evidence on how homeopathic medicines work. Although there has been work in this area
too, nothing is yet conclusive. Despite the problem of not knowing with certainly how homeopathic
medicines work, it is quite possible that this present lack of understanding will not seriously diminish
the acceptance of homeopathy, just as many medical treatments today have been readily accepted even
though physicians still remain unaware of how or why they seem to work.
While managed care organizations have helped to reduce medical care costs by trimming the
"fat" from the medical care system, the cost reductions have been less and less recently, suggesting that
there may not be much more fat to trim. Perhaps what is needed is a more significant change in how
medicine is practiced. Professional homeopathic care provides one viable alternative.
For instance, a child with otitis media may receive round after round of antibiotics and may even
have eartubes inserted at a significant cost of several thousand dollars. And yet, it is extremely common
for children with otitis to receive homeopathic medicines and not experi.ence another ear infection. One
study showed that 70.7% of children with otitis medica showed that those given an individually chosen
68
homeopathic medicine experienced no recurrent ear inflammation and 29.3% had a maximum of three
relapses, while 56.5% of children given a placebo were free of relapses and 43.6% had a maximum of
six recurrences.
Cited References;
1. Margaret Roy, The Principles of Homeopathic Philosophy; Publisher: Longman Group UK
2. Dr. E.A. Maury, Homoeopathic treatment of children’s ailments, Translated from French by
Geoffrey A. Dudley B.A.; Publisher: Thorsons Publisher limited.
3. Jeremy Swayne, Homoeopathic method implications for clinical practice and medical science;
Publisher: Churchill Livingstone
4. Julian N. Kenyon, 21st century medicine, Publisher; Thorsons publishers limited.
5. Dr. C.H.Sharma edited by David Leland, The international manual of homeopathy and natural
medicine, Publisher: Thorsons publishers limited.
6. The international manual of homeopathy and natural medicine by Dr. C.H.Sharma edited by David
Leland. Publisher, Thorsons publishers limited.
7. Homeopathy for children Henrietta wells MCH. RSHOM publisher: ELEMENT.
8. Dr. Rupal Shah & Dr. Rajesh Shah, Indiaspace creation.., © 1997,
http://www.indiaspace.com/homoeopathy/
9. How Small Homeopathic Medicine Works Homeopathic Medical Centre & Info Homeopathy
Malaysia
Http://Www.Geocities.Com/Fakulti/Small.Htm
10. James Tyler KENT, Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy , Presented by Dr Robert Séror An
appreciation
Preface by Pr James Tyler Kent
Introduction par le Dr Robert Séror (French)
http://www.homeoint.org/books3/kentlect/
11. Stuart Close, THE GENIUS OF HOMOEOPATHY (1924), © John Lunstroth2000
http://elm.he.net/~janaka/homeopathy/close/close,genius,index.htm
12. Douglas Hoff ,2001, Classical Homeopathy
http://doughoff.com/homeopathy/01_philosophy/01_toc.htm
13. Jiri Cehovsky, 1994, Translation by: Voyen Koreis,1997, Homoeopathy-More Than A Cure,
Chapters 2-8 ,10-17. http://www.ecn.cz/alternativa/book/hocu13.htm
14. Diploma coarse of the British institute of Homoeopathy 1992.
15. Diploma coarse of the British institute of Homoeopathy 1988
16. J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal,
February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
69
17. David Reilly, Morag Taylor, Neil Beattie, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?"
Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
18. Jennifer Jacobs, L. Jimenez, Margarita, Stephen Gloyd, "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea
with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua," Pediatrics, May 1994,
93,5:719-25.
19. Bruno Brigo, and G. Serpelloni, "Homeopathic Treatment of Migraines: A Randomized Doubleblind Controlled Study of 60 Cases," Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy, March 1991,
1,2:98-106.
20. E. de Lange de Klerk, J. Blommers, D.J. Kuik, et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Medicines on Daily
Burden of Symptoms in Children with Recurrent Upper Respiratory Tract Infections," British Medical
Journal, November 19, 1994, 309:1329-32.
21. R.G. Gibson, S. Gibson, A.D. MacNeill, et al., "Homoeopathic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis:
Evaluation by Double-blind Clinical Therapeutic Trial," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology,
1980, 9:453-59.
22. P. Fisher, "An Experimental Double-Blind Clinical Trial Method in Homoeopathy: Use of a Limited
Range of Remedies to Treat Fibrositis," British Homoeopathic Journal, 1986, 75:142-47.
23. P. Fisher, A. Greenwood, E.C. Huskisson, et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis,"
British Medical Journal, August 5, 1989, 299:365-66.
24. J. Paterson, "Report on Mustard Gas Experiments, Journal of the American Institute of
Homeopathy, 1944, 37:47-50, 88-92.
25. R.M.M. Owen and G. Ives, "The Mustard Gas Experiments of the British Homeopathic Society:
1941-1942, Proceedings of the 35th International Homeopathic Congress, 1982, 258-59.
26. D. Zicari, et al., "Valutazione dell'azione Angioprotettiva di Preparati di Arnica nel Trattamento
della Retinpatia Diabetica," Bolletino de Oculistica, 1992, 5:841-848.
27. J.P. Ferley, D. Zmirou, D. D'Admehar, et al., "A Controlled Evaluation of a Homoeopathic
Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndrome," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology,
March 1989, 27:329-35.
28. Christopher Day, "Control of Stillbirths in Pigs Using Homoeopathy," Veterinary Record, March 3,
1984, 114,9, 216. Also Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, December 1986, 779,
4:146-47.
29. M. Shipley, H. Berry, G. Broster, et al., "Controlled Trial of Homoeopathic Treatment of
Osteoarthritis," Lancet, January 15, 1983, 97-98.
30. David Reilly, Morag Taylor, C. McSharry, et al., "Is Homoeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled
Trial of Homoeopathic Potency, with Pollen in Hayfever as Model" Lancet, October 18, 1986, 881-86.
31. P. Dorfman, M.N. Lasserre, M. and Tetau, "Preparation a l'accouchement par Homeopathie:
Experimentation en double-insu versus Placebo," Cahiers de Biotherapie, April 1987, 94:77-81.
32. P. Eid, E. Felisi, M. Sideri, "Applicability of Homoeopathic Caulophyllum thalictroides during
Labour," British Homoeopathic Journal, 1993, 82:245.
33. P. Eid, E. Felisi, M. Sideri, "Super-placebo ou action Pharmacologique? Une Etude en Double
Aveugle, Randomisee avec un Remede Homeopathique (Caulophyllum thalictroides) dans le Travail de
l'accouchement, Proceedings of the 5th Congress of the O.M.H.I. (International Organization for
Homeopathic Medicine), Paris, October 20-23, 1994.
34. J. Zell, W.D. Connert, J. Mau, et al., "Behandlung von akuten Sprung-gelenksdisotrionen:
Doppelblindstudie zum Wirksamkeitsnachweis eines Homoopathischen Salbenpraparats," Fortschr.
Medicine, 1988, 106:96-100.
35. W. Thiel, and B. Borho, "Die Therapie von Frischen, Traumatischen Blutergussen der Kniegelnke
(Hamartros) mit Traumeel N Injectionslogung," Biol. Medizin, 20:506.
70
36. E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, "Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised,
Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial," Phlebology, 1990, 157-163.
37. A.V. Williamson, W.L. Mackie, W.J. Crawford, et al., "A Study Using Sepia 200c given
Prophylactically Postpartum to Prevent Anoestrus Problems in the Dairy Cow," British Homoeopathic
Journal, 1991, 80:149. See also by the same researchers: "A Trial of Sepia 200," British
Homoeopathic Journal, 1995, 84:14-20.
38. G. Both, "Zur Prophylaxe und Therapie des Metritis-Mastitis-Agalactic: Komplexes des Schweines
mit Biologischen Arzneimitteln," Biologische Tiermedizen, 1987, 4:39.
39. M. Labrecque, D. Audet, L.G. Latulippe, et al., "Homeopathic Treatment of Plantar Warts,"
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 146(10):1749-53.
40. R. Gupta, O.P. Bhardwaj, and R.K. Manchanda, "Homoeopathy in the Treatment of Warts," British
5.
41. Bellavite P, Signorini A. Homeopathy: a frontier in medical science. Berkeley: North Atlantic; 1995.
42. Berman B, Hartnoll SM, Singh BB, Krishna Singh B., Homoeopathy and the US primary care
physician." British Homoeopathic Journal. July 1997;86:131-138.
43. Caisse Nationale de l'Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salaris, 1996 study of 130,000
prescriptions.
44. California vs. Gregory Dana Ullman, Municipal Court Oakland Piedmont Judicial District, 98158,
March 29, 1977.
45. Carlston M, Stuart MR, and Jonas WB. Alternative medicine instruction in medical schools and
family practice residency programs. Family Medicine, October, 1997, 29:559-562.
46. Chapman E. Homeopathy: Moving towards the mainstream in a changing health care system.
Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy. 1995;88,4:172-178.
47. Chapman E. Coding for homeopathic procedures. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy.
1995a;88,3:117-119.
48. Cohen MH. Legal ramifications of homeopathy. Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Medicine. Winter, 1995;1,4:393-398.
49. Feldhaus H-W. Cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatment in a dental practice. British
Homoeopathic Journal. January, 1993;82,1:22-28.
50. Fisher, P, van Haselen, R., Evidence influencing British Health Authorities' decisions in purchasing
complementary medicine. JAMA. November 11 1998;280,18:1564.
51. Food and Drug Administration, Compliance Policy Guide, Conditions Under Which Homeo.pathic
Drugs May be Marketed, 7132.15, 1988.
52. Friese K-H, Kruse S, Moeler H. "Otitis media in children: a comparison of conventional and
homeopathic drugs." HNO (Head and Neck Otorhinolarynology). 1996;44:462-466.
53. Gerhard I, Reimers G, Keller C, et al., "Weibliche fertiltitasstorungen. Vergleich homoopa.thischer
einzelmittel--mit konventioneller hormontherapie." Therapeutikon. 1991;7:309-315.
54. GRECHO, "Evaluation de deux produits homeopathiques sur la reprise du transit apres chirurgic
digestive: un essai controle multicentrique." Presse Med 1989;18:59-62.
55. HomInform, Homoeopathy: The Guide (CDRom), (June 1, 1997).
56. "Herbals Hot; Homeopathics Fare Well," OTC Market Report. June, 1996. Nicholas Hall.
57. Jackson S. Alternative medicine: not so alternative anymore. Business Week. June 2, 1997.
58. Jacobs J, Smith N. Charges, utilization, and practice patterns from a pilot insurance program
covering alternative medical services. American Public Health Association Conference, New York City,
November 18-21, 1996.
59. Jonas WB, Jacobs J, Healing with homeopathy. New York: Warner, 1996.
60. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G, "Clinical trials of homoeopathy." British Medical Journal.
February 9, 1991;302:316- 323.
71
61. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al., "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A
meta-analysis of placebo- controlled trials," Lancet. September 20, 1997;350:834-843.
62. Lo S-Y, "Anomalous state of ice," Modern Physics Letters B. 1996;10,19:909-919.
63. Lo S-Y, Lo A, Chong LW, et al., "Physical properties of water with IE structures." Modern Physics
Letters B. 1996a;10,19:921- 930.
64. National Center for Homeopathy, 1998 Directory, Alexandria, VA.
65. Nevada State Law, Chapter 630A. 1995;15051-15080.
66. Papp R, Schuback G, Beck E, et al., "Oscillococcinum in patients with influenza-like syndromes: A
placebo-controlled double-blind evaluation," British Homoeopathic Journal. April 1998;87:69-76.
67. Piturro MC. The alternative mainstream: managed care beginning to embrace non-conventional
medicine. Managed Healthcare News, June, 1996.
68. Reilly D, Taylor M, Beattie N, et al., "Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?" Lancet.
December 10, 1994;344:1601-6.
69. Settlement agreement between Helen Healy and the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice,
September 18, 1996.
70. Sharples F, van Haselen, R, Patients perspective on using a complementary medicine approach to
their health: a survey at the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital NHS Trust (no date, but first made
available in 1998).
71. Social Security Statistics. CNAM (National Inter-Regulations System) 61, French Government
Report. January 1991.
72. Swayne J, The cost and effectiveness of homeopathy. British Homoeopathic Journal July
1992;81,3:148-150.
73. Ullman D, Implications of a court case, Holistic health handbook. Berkeley: And/Or, 1978.
74. Ullman D. The Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy. New York: Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam; 1996.
75. Walach, H, Hausler, W, Lowes t, et al. "Classical homeopathic treatment of chronic headaches.
Cephalalgia 1997;17:119-26.
76. 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 Sur.gery
1998;124:879-885.
77. Wetzel MS, Eisenberg, D, Kaptchuk T. Course involving complementary and alternative medicine at
US medical schools. JAMA. September 2 1998;280:784-787.
78. Whitmarsh TE, Colestron-Shields SM, Steiner TJ. "Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled
study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine. Cephalalgia 1997;17:600-04.
79. Wiesenauer M, Ludtke R, "A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with
Galphimia Glauca" (a review of 11 annual studies). Forsch Komplementarmed. 1996;3,230-234.
72