Hello

Have been astounded (medical practice being since the downfall of communists very liberal in my place) to find on many places on net an atrocious attrition war between anti- and pro-homeopaths. My approach to this is that as far as I know politics in medicine and the various ways of distorsion of human mentality, the attempt to enlist homeopathy amongst the "clinically proven" disciplines is total failure. But not because it couldn't be so. It will for sure happen because the medical approach to the human ailments is blindly institutionalized.

Let me make clear some things. One - I was involved as assistant researcher into clinical (allopathic) studies done in the clinics I attended during my two residencies. I am familiar with most procedures. I am of course not knowledgeable in all the approaches, not even the expert monitors are. Yet I have a full understanding on what the famous double-blind multicentric blah-blah studies are trying to prove. Second - I usually don't found my practice on belief, nor on anything else (even not on scientific studies) than on my own judgement upon what I consider (and afterwards see as such) useful for my patient. I am (and will die as such) a total rebel to the idea that medicine is, was or should be anything else than a one-man job, now and ever. Institutions are to prevent the wrong, not to enlist the good to be done in a text. Such an approach kills innovative approaches and finally the life of the practice itself. I will never in my life accept that a research institute is closer to my patient than I myself, although I will of course abide to most (if not all) the reasonable approaches which, deriving from consolidated experience of many practitioners, conclude upon what is dangerous or controversial and should be avoided. If my patient feels well (reducing the issue to absurd) because I squeeze a lemon on the top of his head and his illness goes better by that I will be only proud to proceed. That because my goal, for which I swore, is to make sick people feel better.

Now back to those ridiculous attempts to prove drug effectiveness in a place where we don't discuss the main issues : effectiveness in allopathy ? Let me crack my guts laughing. Allopathy recognizes overtly (when appropriatedly challenged) to be totally ignorant what in God's name are the diseases we are compelled to treat based upon these greeeaaat studies.
They are trying to prove that various drugs are effective in treating diseases which are claimed to have unknown causes, that is. Classic medicine deems itself scientific. Yet if I ask such a boasting member of the scientific community to draw me a reasonable approach to understand the cause of - say - arterial hypertension, what he or she has to do (if they have a trace of liminal human decency left) is to admit overtly that they are treating "scientifically" something with no scientifically proven causes. Same for cancer, for autoimmune diseases, let alone the vast domain of psychosomatic disorders. I have records in my desk registering the "scientific" treatment of 100 psychosomatic ailments this year of my practice. The regular (excuse me) shit happening is that the masters of double-blind blah-blah are not even caring to make a decent diagnostic approach before admiting they are ignorant of the cause. Most fainting and vertigo symptoms in women are associated with alleged "hypocalcemia" and treated in ways which make my brain explode. We all know the rest of the process. I do NOT want to state that classic medicine is ineffective. I am actually using heavily (ok, now burn me at stake as heretic) allopathy when the case (and my judgement of it) so requires. But the conclusion of my experience is inherent to my own human decency : allopathy lacks severely any scientific substantiation that appying treatments which are clearly un-etiological (they don't aim the cause of the disease, nor does the scientific research substantiate one) they do more than conserving a state of sickness with some ameliorations of the type related to comfort, quality of life, prolonging the life. In any event - they should admit largely the inevitable : allopathy is a more sophisticated empiry, having had found which drugs and methods do apply with a certain benefit. But to most causes of the diseases, they are unable to provide scientific explanations, they can only assess the morbid process in its details and stop some (sometimes most) of the fatal or crippling consequences. As for the cure - how many allopaths criticising overtly homeopathy as quackery (because "we just make people feel comfortable) would sincerely and honestly write on their door "Hypertension is incurable, there's no hope, here we can only add some years to your life". "Lupus erythematosus is incurable and often fatal, corticoids will only make you feel more comfortable and die in less pain eventually". "X rays do not cure your cancer and we are actually not even sure if they don't aggravate your state but studies suggest they are somehow benefitful". But then of course homeopathy is biased because homeopaths don't agree to do negative advertising willingly on their practice just to be consistent with the lack of consistency of allopaths research, proving only that they don't have a damn clue what science means - science means that the means of research have to be consistent with the object of the research and the anticipated characteristics. I dare one allopath to tell me the principles according to which a double-blind study should be designed to respect the structure of the process to be studied inside. Sadly, many homeopaths don't know either. No comment. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed are wise. But going to what science claims it should be, allopathy is merely more sophisticated and documented empiry, period.

As for substantiation of homeopathic methods, it can be done and actually it has been done to a certain extent. It should only NOT follow the stupid path of allo-homeopathysing the studies performed, like prescribing "Arnica for hypertension" and idiotic approaches alike. Second, it should be done more extensively retrospective, on cases under surveyed treatment and independent follow-up. Third, it should envisage complex methods of assessment on a given simple disease treated with multiple remedies according to case taking and individualizing.

I was also astounded to read here how many gross missinterpreting shadows the understanding of Hahneman's work, most people being unwilling simply to admit he was writing 2 centuries ago, and do the appropriate not only linguistic but also multicultural approaches. Very likely Hippocrates believed in the Greek gods, it is yet not this approach which consecrated him to us.

When I have more time I will be glad to comeback on these items.
Cheers to all,
Alex.

Dear All and Alex,

I was captivated with what Mr. Alex has written. The doctor should aim at helping the diseased feel better and cure the disease than boast of science behind it.

I can give a classic example. I delivered a baby boy on Sep 20th 2004. He was born with blisters on his skin filled with fluid. The allopathic doctors made an instant diagnosis and told me "BLUNTLY" that my son has genetic skin disorder and that there is no cure. I will have to learn to see him suffer till he can take it. They suggested that I can confirm what they are saying by doing a skin biopsy.

I decided to kill myself and my son to end this ordeal totally. How can I take this?. I attempted suicide twice and my husband saved me both times.

I then decided to try Homeopathy. The condition aggravated. But then after that started getting better though not fully gone. The homeopath assured me that it is curable and I need more patience. I decided to give it a try.
Then after a couple of months decided to try the biopsy as the allopath doctor prescribed earlier (my homeopath challenged that it was a wrong diagnosis). The results of biopsy came and my son had "NO TRACES OF THAT INCURABLE GENETIC SKIN DISORDER". Now the allopaths want to try other tests on my little baby but I stopped them.

I am happy with the way my son is recovering with homeopathy. Now he is 6 1/2 months old but on the path to cure. I am sure soon he will be completely cured. His symptoms have come down by 85% and another 15 % to go.

Allopathy would have easily killed my son and me for giving the so called science behind his problems but Homeopathy with no such science could make my son get better..........

I hope more and more people out there understand that the role of a doctor is to help the patient not to scare them and even if its psychological treatment it is very important.

Regards
Shabeena

God be blessed for this outcome. Mind you though, my posting was not intended towards the ineffectiveness of classic medicine. It is useful, it is also proven extensively in some respects. The problem is that, exactly as you remarked, its aim was seriously distorted from a healing approach into a self-sufficient "scientific" system. Medicine is a science, but the system of medicine can't be conceived within the same approach we conceive a computer science approach. That's what we always should remeber.

at_amarfei: So is your opinion, but surely you will agree that if a treatment (of any kind), has a real effect on patients, then certainly this can be tested in some way?

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Dear at_amarfel and Hans,

First of all I am not against classical allopathic medicines. I know some of the theories of cure and they are absolutely rational.

with regard to showing some scientific method of action of homeopathic medicines, just because scientists have not found out the exact mode of action of these dilute remedies ( theories like memory of water due to potentizations do exist), it does not mean that homeopathy is farce. A lot of things are unknown to us today but will be known tomorrow. So lets see the results of the system and wait to find out more about it as and when it is discovered. Till such time lets not ridicule its efficiency.

We did not know about gravity before Newton found it but the effect was accepted long before it as a natural force or phenomenon.

Regards
Shabeena

Of course a treatment can be tested. I have already spoken about that - let's review some things briefly.

a) taken into account that remedies in homeopathy are individualized according to coincidence of remedy profile/symptoms of disease, first step should be to prescribe on selected cases

b) taken into account that individual experience of homeopaths is very variable (a polite way to state that inexperienced homeopaths often have at least a couple of erroneous approaches before "nailing" the good remedy) we should think to :

b.1. have studies performed on chronic diseases AND on long term. (Side comment : the ludicrous would-be studies done till now have in the utmost of their majority the main defect of assessing very short term effects). Taking into account chronic diseases should allow enough interval for the researchers to re-assess case and follow-up with other remedies

b.2. the protocol should NOT assess the remedy but the appropriate succession of remedies or multiple administration, at carefully selected dosage and intervals, of a a certain remedy in various potencies. This is concordant with many studies of allopathy themselves, which assess not whether substance X is potent in disease Y but eventually if a drug association does. In shorter terms, assessing "homeopathic remedies" inasmuch as chronic diseases rarely need one alone to stabilize, is WRONG. Assessing the METHOD is the good choice.

b.3. the protocol should have its focus not on standardizing a method of administering the remedy in fixed potency, we have empiric info suggesting this is wrong. The protocol instead should allow a consensus to be developed in the team of researchers about the diagnosis of remedy and periodic reassessment of the accuracy of diagnosis concordant to the case evolution. Upon such changes, the protocol should allow to follow-up with other remedies if appropriatedly found as more concordant with the case than the innitial choice or if the logic of the case approves to judge a remedy succession as described by Hahneman himself. A conclusion : the study can be blinded but not double-blinded. It is impossible for a team of physicians not to do the reasessment of the case based upon evolution. Eventually the administrator of the remedy him/herself should be unaware of whether the remedy was given or the placebo instead. But that's how far things can go. Less than this means to falsify the diagnostic and therapeutic approach of the method itself.

b.4. if something is to be dismissed this is the lame way remedies were deemed to be "fit for the case" based upon a list of several symptoms which is actually a total inaccuracy in respect to the regular diagnostic procedure. If the remedy choice is doubtful the case is to be dismissed before entering trial. The allopathic trials ARE based on a symmilar procedure of case choice which rules out the doubtful cases.

c) Because administering CH dilutions needs large intervals of time inbetween at the cost of blocking/suppressing patient's reactivity if given too tight, LM dilutions, which are of a softer and yet deeper action should be used, which also allow daily or every-other-day administration and have a much more dosable effect and a reversible action (if proven wrong) on short time (days) which allows also a swift re-addressing of the diagnostic approach if the remedy is deemed wrongly chosen.

d) Retrospective studies of homeopathic patients could be performed especially where they were not taking allopathic medicines together with homeopathy, or where such treatment is deemed by classic medicine to soothe symptoms but the disease in itself is considered incurable

e) Long-term studies should assess the longstanding effects of homeopathy in cohorts of patients, upon careful choice of the physician performing and of the cases worked upon.

I think that none of the existing studies was performed under such conditions, nor had the lenght necessary to allow a consistent therapeutic approach to develop. In brief, once again, they assessed remedies and not a method. This is not enough, and homeopathic theory really disapproves such an approach.

As a side comment. I have seen (and participated to completion of) clinical protocols designed to prompt the infrastructure of a clinical study (a serious one I mean). For the simplest matter to be assessed, the dossier was something like a medium size book for only the criteria of selections and the parameters to be followed. Now let's hope both homeopaths who do studies and allopaths who rush to demolish them will take note of that. Till then, by the way, allopaths and would-be scientists who boast against the studies are building victories upon an already dead corpse. No serious clinica trial monitoring institution would agree even to deem below-average the criteria met by the choice of cases, methods of monitoring and reassessing the case etc.

And re. your next post: Yes, a full clinical trial would be complex and expensive, but the rewards, in case of a positive outcome, would easily outweigh that. The profit potential, could homeopathic remedies be scientifically vindicated, is enormous.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Of course I do believe (believe = been convinced by practice) that homeopathy can cure acute diseases, but the usual problem is that such diseases are functional or with minimal lesional substrate, so people would tend to argue that they healed by themselves; an acute disease which can evolve into lesions within placebo therapy can pose ethical problems due to the acute&lesional character itself. Acutes do not offer to much time to reset the therapy if remedy proves well chosen, so the risk of having many failures is bigger inasmuch as the fiability of a clinical test relies also on the deep experience of the team involved. I just suggested a chronic and quantifiabile disease for a start.

>Selected on which criteria?

- Homogeneity of the cases as for paraclinical parameters (say - same group of severity of an arterial hypertension cohort). The severity should not be such that suspension of allopathic treatment for a period would reckonably cause irreversible damage, and appropriate monitoring to detect onset of such damage should the patient be non-responsive or subject to placebo must be part of the study
- Cases should be free of previous homeopathic treatment
- Each case should be assessed at the utmost as for the possible remedy which can cure

Then, connected to the previous :

- To double-blind the study, the team in knowledge of the treatment should allow the administrators of the cure to give to all the patients a number of placebo pills at regular interval and upon advise about the patient's evolution they can (or not) intercalate/change remedies.

That is, all the patients receive a pill once a day. For the placebo cohort it is always placebo. For the treated cohort, it is placebo - say - 19 days in 20, then the remedy. The direct administrator of the remedy simply gives the treatment (or placebo) and notes the evolution. The team in knowledge of the content of the treatment can secondarily assess the patient. The problem is that re-assessment for a second remedy if the first not effective can be somehow inducive of the intention to change it. I do not have a specific idea what is to be done about this. If the team in knowledge of the nature of the cure is not able to assess directly the patient the ones who are blinded can be biased. If they are allowed to reassess the case the way they do it can be inducive. This is a cornerstone. Not all remedies really allow the same kind of consultation.

About acutes: Well, either it works on acutes, in which case the effect must show up in a test, or it doesn't. That aside, I tend to agree with your other reservations.

Mild hypertension is also my idea of a target complaint, both because it fulfills ethical criteria of posing negligible risk for the control group, and, most of all, because it is objectively assessible: There will be no need for verbal assessments, we can simply measure the outcome with a reasonably good precision. This greatly reduces the risk of various biases.

My idea of a protocol is that patients are treated by the homeopath or homeopaths in exactly the way they would be normally, only prescriptions are sent to the neutral third party (there are accredited labs that can be hired for this kind of service), where, according to a randomized list, either the prescribed remedy or placebo is issued to the patient. Obviously, placebo will be issued in a way that makes it indistinguishable from the verum; if 3 tablets are prescribed, placebo will be three tablets, if a spoonful of liquid remedy is prescribed, placebo will be a spoonful of liquid.

Actually, I have information which seems to indicate that a similar trial is currently being planned by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) in cooperation with some British homeopaths. I don't have any details, however.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>