Friends,
It has come to my attention that Hans Egebo is an occasional reader and contributor to this discussion group. Hans proudly proclaims that he is a skeptic of homeopathy. I was, therefore, surprised to go to his website http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/) and not find a single reference to any controlled scientific experiment (not a single laboratory study nor clinical trial) was referenced, described, or critiqued.

He doesn't make reference to the studies using potencies of Histamine that were replicated at FOUR universities and that we led by a professor of chemistry who was a former skeptic of homeopathy (M. Ennis), and of course, he ignored reference to the three independently conducted, double-blind, placebo-controlled relatively large clinical trials of Oscillococcinum. It is always interesting when skeptics of homeopathy have an unscientific attitude towards homeopathy while proclaiming that homeopathy isn't scientific. In technical terms, I call this CHUTZPAH CM (a high potency of it!).

Hans also has the audacity (and chutzpah) to talk about James Randi's $1 million "prize" for proving homeopathy. Randi participated in two TV shows one on the BBC in the UK and one on 20/20 on ABC in the US). Both of these studies were embarrassingly poorly designed, and although they were claimed to be replications of previous studies published in scientific journals, these studies were set-up for homeopathy's failure. For details about this "junk science," go to:
http://homeopathic.com/articles/media/index.php

It is also interesting to note that Hans never provides his email address at his website or in his correspondences to this list. Does he really want to learn or just spout off his unscientific attitude?

Dana Ullman, MPH

I do not know anything about Hans - but as far as these studies are concerned we are neither scientific nor in any way consistent!

Those who claim to be "homeopaths" are always stressing that the homeopathic principle is based on "similary" and is independent of potentizing.

The studies you are referring to, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the principle of similarity. They just show that potentized substances can work. If anything, they show that nosode therapy can work.

The same holds true for all the trials I studied, which came out positive. They were all along the lines of: "remedy x for disease y" - without much attention to similarity. Or they were done with mixes.

A very few trials of a somewhat more "homeopathic" approach came out negative.

The objective proof of "homeopathy" is still to be achieved.

Regards

Luise

has yet to be proved.

But many people believe ?.

We are as likely to get objective proof of god , as we are to get objective proof of homeopathy!.

Why bother - either you believe -- or -- you do not.

As for Hans -- again why bother- there are more important things to attend to!.

----------------------------------------
Hans

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

Even the "remedy x for disease y" studies are certainly based (tho maybe primitively) on symptom similarity, tho to varying degrees. In some studies the only patients used were those whose symptoms *did* seem to fit the remedy chosen for the study, but even when this was not done there should be a *certain* number of the group that do fit--which of course is the reason why "remedy x" is *thought of* for "disease y"...

But your point is well taken, that studies concerning action of "potentized substances" etc. is certainly a different issue from study of homeopathy itself.

Shannon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise The objective proof of "homeopathy" is still to be achieved.

Luise, IMO the above should be reworded--"the objective proof of INDIVIDUALIZED homeopathic treatment has yet to be designed and FINANCED".

That 200 years of medical experience is not objective proof that homeopathic remedies act successfully when chosen on the similarity principles, is selling everything short, would you not agree... We have a whole 200 year old literature of individual cases, and statistics on acute disease treatment with group totality simillimum in high mortality epidemics (smallpox, yellow fever, etc).

Such a study of individualized similar rx as you propose would require the assessment of each individual case in the test cohort as an independent data point which would have to be tracked longitudinally for a long time. Each individual case would be considered a test of treatment by similitude, as they would not be tied together by a common thread as in the typical disease remedy study. Large numbers of such cases would have to be gathered, and this would likely be far more expensive than a typical study, and would have to have a design of objective indicators of improvement and wellness. The best practitioners would need to be chosen for the study.

So, I give the opinion that the issue is not whether objective proof has been determined--this discounts collective experience and cases in the literature. What has (probably) not been done (though I could be mistaken in modern format and refereeing is the design and financing of a study of the individualized type. Even if this was done--because of its design, it may draw criticism of nonobjectivity because it departs from the typical model of a medicinal study, and could not be double blind (only single). So then the question would become, who would the study be done FOR? If a study cannot be designed in the model of those who do not want to see homeopathy succeed, then is it a study done to convince ourselves only? Do we need to be convinced?

Design and financing of such a study would be a large undertaking, and would have to have statistical theory behind it that may be pioneering new ground for a type of individualized medicine that is unknown in conventional circles. And the skill of the practitioner would be paramount to the result. I suggest that this type of study be done using the London Clinic that uses an objective confirmatory method--and using cases otherwise from only the most experienced pracs with the widest scope of methodologies at their disposal.

Dana, an MPH public health practitioner, knows well the issues involved with researching homeopathy in a credible manner. Would an individualized study design make any impact on the people who are to be swayed--who "think" only with the named disease model in mind? If a person with a functional energetic pattern does not even exist in conventional medicine, and only morbid symptoms and their existence and absence are admitted as objective "evidence", then we need more stark situations (eg. acute, or epidemic). One would hope that a study of the individualized track record of people with established chronic disease would be convincing to anyone, but the undertaking would have to be carefully undertaken, and would be expensive. Perhaps something like it has already been done, and if so, it would be interesting to see what its impact was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise The same holds true for all the trials I studied, which came out positive. They were all along the lines of: "remedy x for disease y" - without much attention to similarity. Or they were done with mixes.

A group totality rx IS a "remedy x for disease y", and it is based firmly on para 101-103 similarity. Hahnemann resolved the issue down to the level of for example, the "antipsorics" but could not resolve the group totality down to the named disease, except in acute situations when that group totality can be found. Chappell has shown that this can be done technologically for chronic diseases as well as acute, and the disease remedies used in some of these studies are an attempt to do the same using potentized substance analogs from the materia medica.

The "mixes" or combination remedies are a crude attempt to create a group totality remedy like what Chappell produces more precisely and completely. By mixing together the pathogeneses of a spectrum of remedies known to act on a particular disease, it approximates a group totality. It is inelegant, but it will have a predictable success rate. Unfortunately that success rate will be well below 100%. But it will be high enough to show efficacy in a conventionally designed study. So, saying that all these studies have NO connection with the similarity principle is incorrect. However imperfect they are--many of them are an attempt to resolve a group simillimum using substance analogs. Hahnemannian homeopathy and the action of a similar remeedy is more than the individualized simillimum, though that is our tool nonpareil.

The group totality tupe of simillimum stands a better chance of making an impact through statistics, as it provides a 1:1 correlation in the allopathic study model. It is based on similarity to a summed group of cases, so it is homeopathic--not isopathic, not nosode.

Homeopathy really turned heads from the high survival rates of the 1870's Yellow fever epidemic in the southern US, and many other epidemics of smallpox, etc. The contrast in survival was obvious and incontrovertible. The genius epidemicus for these virulent, high mortality, and often one-remedy-fits-all debacles was a group totality simillimum, which is a disease remedy, and based on SIMILARITY to the GROUP case. We have stats (albeit not peer reviewed studies) for severe acute diseases in which the general population had high mortality, and homeopathic clients with a background of individualized treatment, and the group totality rx for tx and prophylaxis, were spared.

As Chappell has shown, with a large enough cohort, a precision disease remedy for chronic named diseases can be engineered using this Hahnemannian method, even if no analog exists in the materia medica for a given disease totality. Stable chronic, and perhaps even mutating acutes can be treated by a group totality which is similar to those summed peculiars in a large enough group of cases. This has been extensively discussed, and is in the minutus archives. The individualized approach is of course not eclipsed by the existence of a direct approach to similarity of miasmatic complex which underlies a named disease. But the disease remedy, like the true genius epidemicus in an acute group disease, will approach infallibility in rural, undrugged, unsuppressed peoples, and nicely demonstrate the power of similitude. This was shown by the stats on smallpox and other high mortality epidemics treated in the US and Europe in the last 200 years.

For the purposes of convincing study, group totality remedies may be the most efficient way to prove the action of similarity. Of course there are problems with the proprietary nature of the technology that Chappell uses, and the departures from use of potentized substance analogs make that type of remedy somewhat different. And that approach is still in its infancy and still small. However, it shows consistent results in chronic disease as would be expected from what we know about the efficacy of the genius epidemicus in high mortality acutes. Thus the attempt to treat diseases with substance analogs by that same para 101-103 principle resolved down to the individual chronic disease is utilized in at least some of the studies that Dana has compiled. People have been trying to find the group totality specific for a named disease in the materia medica. Unfortunately the potentized analog may not be (when treating a chronic case) the true genius epidemicus for that disease in all cases, as Chappell's technology attempts to approximate.

So, to date, if I am not mistaken, at least some of the studies in the database Dana has compiled are a Chappell TYPE approach--but using potentized analogs from the materia medica. So many of these disease rx studies are based on a principle of group similarity as in para 101-103.

Other studies are more like the practitioner treats many cases of, say, dysentery, with individualized rx, and then the results are tallied at the end and compared with conventional results (I believe Jennifer Jacobs MD did a study like this in Central America or Mexico). I suspect that Dana would have more to say on this topic and what are the types of studies that are most common.

As you know, Parimal Banerji has 15 million data points over 90 years of the type of data you are looking for (individualized treatment AND directed at and optimized for chief complaint). Unfortunately, I doubt his work, perhaps the largest private medical database in the history of humankind, will convince any "Western" nay-sayer, though I could be wrong. The thinking mode of the "western" conventional researcher is "1:1"; they might discard "old" studies done in Calcutta; and, most of all, understanding homeopathic methodology is quite a bit beyond most of the people who are skeptics, and who it would really make a difference to convince. The ability to get ones mind around the theory of what homeopathy is and does is not an easy task, even for homeopaths themselves.

Still, trying to organize Banerji's data for presentation to the mainstream in some form may be worth looking into--but it would be a massive and expensive data entry and statistical task.

And, the group totality simillimum IS based on similarity. The problem lies in how precise and universal a potentized analog can be--because it may not have all the symptoms of the summed group case within its pathogenesis. A combination remedy will have to have many constituents (a la a HEEL type remedy) to come close to the group totality remedy for the disease in question. In acute diseases, mutation may affect reliability because of the stability of the symptoms. As we know, every acute presentation of even the same named acute disease is different. But if the peculiars of the disease itself can be captured, resonance with the latent miasms which allow (even an) acute disease to go on a rampage (MAY) be possible with a generic group totality remedy.

Best,
Andy

Friends,

I disagree with Luise Kunkle's remarks that homeopathic research doesn't verify the homeopathic principle of similars, but this was NOT the point of my previous email, nor is it usually the point in a skeptic's skeptism of homeopathy! A skeptic is skeptical because of the "small" size of the dose tha we use, not because of the principle of similars.

The studies that I described in my email AND in the new article at my website ("Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works") verify both the nanodoses and the principle of similars (Using homeopathic histimine decreased # basophils in part because crude doses of histamine increase them; and the Oscillo study verifies that homeopathic doses of it reduce the flu, while "proving doses" of it create flu-like syndromes).

Luise...while we disagree, I'm always happy to note (and even feel totally comfortable with the fact) that homeopaths do not always have to agree on everything.

Dana

Hi Shannon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon Even the "remedy x for disease y" studies are certainly based (tho maybe primitively) on symptom similarity, tho to varying degrees.

Similarity to what?

They were never proven.

Use of them is based on experience or, perhaps in case of histamine, on taking the effects of histamine, as known from regular physiology resp. pathology, immunology and such as "proving".

This would be a redifinition of proving, which te me would be very sensible.

Therapy based on experience, which would be the same as "on cured cases" to me is also most sensible.

But IMO these are topics with which the homeopaths will have to come to terms.

We cannot on one hand claim the positive results of such trials as proof of homeopathy - on the other hand say that treatments on such indications are "unhomeopathic"

Rather - we can and we do!

And that is sloppy thinking!


In some studies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon the only patients used were those whose symptoms *did* seem to fit the remedy chosen for the study

can you point me to those?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon but even when this was not done there should be a *certain* number of the group that do fit--which of course is the reason why "remedy x" is *thought of* for "disease y"...

I am not saying that those studies *disprove* homeopathy.

Hi Andy,

even if I agree with everything you say - and I find that I do except perhaps for small issues - My point remains as it was.

Either:

We redefine homeopathy as "use of potentized remedies" (as has the general use in Germany and probably elsewhere).

This would mean that *all* therapies that use potentized substances are homeopathy

Or

We cannot use trials like those with Galphinia glaucum, histamine, oscillococcinum to "prove" homeopathy.

All else is "sloppy thinking"

Whether homeopathy needs further proving or not is besides the point, so is the difficulty of doing so etc.

Regards

Luise

Luise,

I agree with you re the 'potentising', but I would definitely include 'similarity' and very 'minute quantities'. That is the bedrock of homeopathy.

Jeff Tikari