Homeopathy
This article is in the process of intense editing. Please do not effect further changes for the time being.
Homoeopathy is a pseudo-scientific method which is being used for the treatment of almost any disease. It was invented by Samuel Hahnemann, a doctor and occultist from Saxony, around 1800 and, largely unaltered, presists to this day. Homoeopathy relies on two general basic principles. One of them, known as the "law of similars", reads "let like be cured by like." Hahnemann determined that, according to the law of similars, every disease was curable by substances which cause similar symptoms when taken by a healthy patient. The other principle is called potentialization (actually meaning dilution). Homoeopathic remedies are supposed to be more effecitve the more they are diluted into solutions according to particular procedures. None of these two principles was confirmed experimentally until now.
Believers in homoeopathy are frequently, consciously or unconsciously, overall sceptical towards scientific medicine: the (mostly irrational) fear of "harmful chemistry" is inseparably connected to a "nocebo effect" which impairs the effect of well approved conventional methods.
Also see: Allopathy
Variants of Homoeopathy
Different variants of the original classic homoeopathy developed in the course of the time. Today, there are low-potentizers and high-potentizers, monotherapists and polypragmatists, homoeopathic phytotherapists and anthroposophic homoeopaths, etc.
- Classic homoeopathy is the form of homoeopathy strictly complying to Samuel Hahnemann's teachings. According to Hahnemann no more than one remedy is to be administered for all physical or mental diseases at any given time. A classical homoeopath thus will look for the one remedy he believes to be the suitable similar. The most well-known current representative is Georgos Vithoulkas.
- Constitutional homoeopathy applies mixtures of homoeopathic remedies based on due respective diagnoses. Also see: Constitutional homoeopathy
- Clinical homoeopathy describes the application of homoeopathic remedies in so-called low potencies (D1-D12) for certain diagnoses.
- Miasmatic homoeopathy describes different variants of constitutional homoeopathy with an emphasis on the therapy of chronic diseases in due consideration of Hahneman's miasmatic theory.
- Micro-immune therapy is a method which potentises cytokines applied sublingually. Providers of this therapy assume that this will place a high concentration of immune system components under the patient's tongue. The therapy aims at modulating the immune system with the potentized effect of cytokines. Maurice Jenaer is regarded the founder of micro-immune therapy. One supplier of micro-immunal therapeutic agents is Labo'Life company which also holds a patent on "specific nucleid acids". Details on effect and composition of the remedies are not available.
- Biochemical homoeopathy refers to a variant of homoeopathy which uses nosodes and potentized poisons (also see the Horvi-Enzyme-Therapy). The method is apparently only used by its inventor, biochemist and non-medical practitioner Karin Lenger from Offenbach.
- Newer interpretations and derivatives of homoeopathy are gaining ground. Borderlines towards faith healing or energy medicine are rather blurred. Representatives of this therapy mostly refused by classical homeopaths believe an introduction of remedies into the patient's body following anamnesis and repertorization was not necessary. They believe physical proximity between patient and remedy was sufficient to develop effects. Remedies could thus e.g. be kept on the body or placed under the patient's pillow. A glass of water is also said to show homoeopathic effects when merely placed on a sheet of paper with the name of the remedy. The paper will then transfer its information to the water. Some methods typically applied in this spectrum are Harmopathy, New Homoeopathy according to Erich Körbler, Seghal method, Herscue method, process-oriented homoeopathy, quantum logical homoeopathy, creative homoeopathy, impulse homoeopathy, Similis cards, Silent Healing or the Sankaran method (also called "Bombay method" or "systematic homoeopathy"). Tele-homoeopathy is another variant of homoeopathy whose inventor claims it was effective as a remote treatment via internet (e-mail or Skype) or via telephone.
- Homoeosiniatry is a method combining the elements of homoeopathy and traditional Chinese medicine. Both acupuncture and homoeopathic remedies are being applied.
- Digital homoeopathy as an alternative expression for Holopathy.
- Banerji protocol-method
- C4-Homoeopathy
- "resonance healing" according to Peter Chappell
Electro-homoeopathy is no homoeopathic method with which it only shares the name, but refers to a variant of spagyrics. Some electrically operated equipment for diagnostics or therapy will be connected to homoeopathy by their inventors and suppliers. Cem Tech, Transmaterial Catalyst or Wave Transfer are some examples of such devices.
In accordance with the patients to be treated, there is a homoeopathy aiming at curing human beings, but also animal and plant homoeopathy. Plant homoeopathy comprises methods influencing plant growth with homoeopathic products (e.g. a product named Biplantol).
Hering's Law of Cure
A so-called Hering's Law of cure was suggested by Constantin Hering, a Saxonian supporter of Hahnemann in the 19th century. Hering believed a recovery happened when an extinction of symptoms was effected in the following directions:
- from inside to the outside
- from above to below
- from now to earlier
No scientific basis
After some 200 years of research of homoeopaths and non-homoeopaths, no scientific proof of an efficacy of homoeopathy - beyond the placebo effect - has been established, and mechanism of actions postulated are classified as disproven today. According to the present level of knowledge, homoeopathy must be seen as a placebo therapy which, however, does not mean it is completey ineffective. One can indeed assume that, particularly given a charismatic therapist and a corresponding therapeutic ritual, it can achieve an effect with corresponding patients compared to no treatment (that is the idleness). Dangers may result from homoeopathy when homoeopath and patient will overestimate the placebo effects and thus refrain from treatments with a reproducible proof of effectiveness beyond the placebo effect.
What speaks against homoeopathy is there is no evidence of efficacy, the pseudo-scientific dogmatic character of homoeopathy schools (which are actually orthodox medical practitioners), the completely lack of prevention of disease as well as inherent contradictions like the not reproducible cinchona experiment to which Hahnemann refers alternatively. Homoeopaths do not like to say how long a therapy shall be carried out. From a chemical scientific point of view the method of potentialization (which rather is a dilution) cannot be accomodated to reality.
An alleged lack of side effects is often mentioned as an argument speaking for homoeopathy. It is being argued that hardly any side effects are to be expected from strong dilutions. This argument, however, contradicts the assumption that dilution increases the effect of a substance and thus must be seen as an inherent contradiction of homoeopathy. Another argument in favour of homoeopathy often voiced is the strengthening of human abilities to self-healing. Supporters have, as of yet, failed to provide any respective evidence.
Contrary to frequent views of homoeopathy offering a holistic treatment, this alternative form of medical treatment must be considered as a symptom-based therapy exclusively based on symptoms discernible to and described by the patient. The aetiology of diseases (cause study) is vastly ignored.
Hahnemann and modern homoeopaths base their theories on healing laws which include the concept that homoeopathic therapies were healing a human being from top to bottom and from inside to outside, beginning with the latest symptom. Such ideas are not based on any models of biology or disease.
The Medical Faculty of Marburg University, in magazine Ärzteblatt dated March 3, 1993, declared homoeopathy a false doctrine: Its mechanism of action was a deception of the patient, enforced by self-deception on the part of the therapist.
Pseudo-scientific explanatory approaches
From a scientific view, homoeopathy is not plausible: The homoeopathy is not plausible from the scientific view: It contradicts logic, the laws of nature, and medical knowledge past and present. High potencies of D23 or C12 or more do not contain any molecule of raw material. How are drops supposed to work which only consist of solvents? There is no water memory which could assimilate "information".
Within the framework of scientific medicine, it is not reasonable to explain the functionality of methods which are not in a position to prove their efficacy. Any exploration of mechanisms of action in homoeopathy are not reasonable as long as their is no indication of homoeopathy having any efficacy in the first place. Therefore, all attempts at explaining homoeopathy are scientifically unfounded and must be classified as pseudo-science.
This, however, does not prevent homoeopaths from devising mechanisms of action regarding homoeopathy, nor from publishing these. The range covered spans from animist concepts of animated matter in which dilution will release the positive spirits (or vibrations) of substances to a pseudo-scientific re-interpretation of quantum mechanic and nuclear physical concepts (cf. quantum mysticism). Contemporary homoeopaths and supporters of homoeopathy often refer to quantum mechanics in physics in order to explain the alleged effects of homoeopathic remedies. Quantum effects, however, only matter on a subatomic and perhaps probably on an atomic level. They are not relevant for the makroscopic world or for biological system like virus, individual cells or upwards. Two persons often mentioned in this context are Anton Zeilinger, a quantum physicist from Vienna, and psychologist Harald Walach, a professor with European University Viadrina in Frankfort.
A water memory, which Jacques Benveniste imagined to have detected, is often cited as evidence. It has been evident since 1995 at the latest that Benvenistes results are not reproducible. Still the claim is maintained that high dilutions contained information, although neither an information carrier nor a code can be conceived. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that also the most recent "evidence" employing rat intestines, celebrated as a breakthrough, was finally proven wrong and proved to be untenable. An extensive appreciation of this pseudo research at Leipzig University may be found here: add source[4]. Whatever information the structure of water is supposed to contain according to the concept of its supporters, it additionally needed to be transferred to the sugar pills on which the drop of homoeopathic water is applied. Water memory would have to "survive" ingestion and absorption by the gastrointestinal system, as well as transport to the body tissues by blood. Biologists have neither found a "water memory" nor discovered homoeopathic signals or receptors, nor anything which plausibly was in a position to serve as a receptor for water structures.
Diluted water, too, is being offered as a homoeopathic remedy (1 gram of diluted water costs about 1 pound, see illustration on the right), rendering the concept just as dubious as the assertions of some homoeopaths that remedies placed beneath the pillow or carried on the body were also able to take an effect.
Dangers of Homoeopathy
As scientific article and media have established repeatedly, homoeopathic remedies are not free of risks. Homoeopathic cures may, for instance, relay the application of adequate efficient therapies, or may prevent their use completely.
Homoeopathy and malaria prophylaxis and anti-tick globules
It has been repeatedly observed in Germany that homoeopaths will use a remedy by the name of "Malaria 2000", using it as a prophylactic with patients who intend to enter countries where malaria happens to be endemic. On quite a regular basis, hospitals will treat patients suffering from malaria who report to have done a prophylaxis with this remedy but contracted the disease all the same. There was at least one fatal case in which a patient died after having undergone a prophylaxis with Malaria 2000.
On its website, a public radio station in Bavaria quotes the Munich Institute for Tropical Diseases which established several fatalities of persons having relied on a homoeopathic malaria prophylaxis. In publications, the Drug Commissions of Pharmacists and the German Medical Association explicitly cautioned against such homoeopathic malaria prophylaxis: Already on March 19, 1998, the Drug Commission of Pharmacists cautioned against a homoeopathic malaria prophylaxis. It is explicitly pointed out that malaria is a serious and in some cases life-threatening medical condition which "may not be met by non-specific homoeopathic remedies with which patients believe to be able to acquire an increased immunity towards malaria pathogens. There are cases on record in scientific literature in which such a "prophylaxis" failed. We therefore strongly advise against dispensing homoeopathic remedies for malaria prophylaxis. The warning issued by the Drug Commission of German Medical Doctors (AMK), published in German Medical News issue no. 95 dated August 19, 1998, is even more explicit and insistent. AMK refers to the homoeopathic malaria prophylaxis provided by one particular company, writing: [...] Practising physicians prescribing homoeopathic malaria prophylaxes to patients will face consequences under professional codes of practice and will be prosecuted criminally. Malaria is a serious disease which may be life-threatening, [...] Due to acute dangers for patients relying on the homoeopathic remedy received, AMK views this as malpractice and, to protect patients, strictly advises against prescribing such remedies.
On the other hand, disease prophylaxis per se is controversial within the homoeopathy scene, since no homoeopathic remedies can be found in the absence of recognizable symptoms. Such malaria prophylaxes also emerged in England, causing British NHS to suspend payments to homoeopathic facilities in 2008.
So-called anti-tick globules to prevent Lyme disease - in a natural way, as an Arnsberg pharmacy advises sub rosa - must be seen in a similarly critical way. The pharmacy claims to have developed a particular mixture in cooperation with a manufacturer of homoeopathics; the mixture contains nosodes which are supposed to be a homoeopathic equivalent to vaccination. There is an explicit reference to diseases like tick-borne encephalitis and Lyme disease. The globules are said to additionally contain ledum palustre (Marsh Labrador tea) which is supposed to effect changes in body odour and thus protect patients.
The application of homoeopathic Spenglersan Kolloid M remedies for malaria prophylaxis documentedly was not in a position to prevent malaria. Swedish doctors published case reports and cautioned.
In 2009, the World Health Organization WHO explicitly warned against homoeopathy as a treatment option for malaria, HIV infection, tuberculosis, influenza, and diarrhoea in children.
Homoeopathic Antidots
Supporters of homoeopathy are afraid of apparently unwelcome effects of their therapies, particularly in terms of a too intense initial worsening too following a homoeopathic medication. In such cases, so-called homoeopathic antidotes may be applied. For this purpose patients are advised it was sufficient to render the remedy ineffective simply by ingesting [...] some strong coffee or taking smells at camphor (tiger balm, Vic-vapo-rup...) [...].
According to so-called women's magazine "FÜR SIE" (i.e. "for her"), mobile phones "impaired" the efficacy of homoeopathic remedies. Before ingesting such a remedy, mobile phones therefore should be put aside. Similarly, electromagnetic fields of radio alarm clocks, computers, and microwave ovens may impair the efficacy of remedies.
History of Homoeopathy
At the time of its emerge, homoeopathy must be conceded quite "scientific" a character, in accordance with definitions valid at that time. After all, Hahnemann proceeded empirically, checking theses in self-experiments. One can grant homoeopathy thoroughly "scientific" character at time of its development (according to definition at that time). After all, Hahnemann proceeded empirically and checked his thesis at experiments on himself. Due to the increase in knowledge occured since, this theory appears interesting merely from a medico-historical point of view. Due to the lack of evidence of efficacy, homoeopathy cannot be regarded as a serious medical method. At Hahnemann's times, neither clinical thermometers had been invented nor had knowledge of bacteria been acquired, instead there were weird explanations (e.g. miasma theories of pathogenic vapours emanating from the soil), so Hahnemann's model must be seen as quite sensible from a historical point of view. From today's view, after more than two centuries of an enormous gain in knowledge, one can assume that even Hahnemann, given today's knowledge, felt inclined to ridicule his apologists. Thus homoeopathy was fiercely criticized already more than 100 years ago (see links). The law of similars does not go back to Hahnemann; analogical concepts already existed prior to Hahnemann (e.g. in England).
It is furthermore remarkable that some of the recommendations given in Hahnemann's Organon are not being propagated broadly any longer, such as applying hot turpentine to scaldings. While Hahnemann's teachings thus are, quite appropriately, partly rejected as outdated and unfounded, particulary with treatments showing immediate effect or failure, other parts of his teachings are still being marketed profitably, in particular those allowing a placebo effect.
Homoeopathic doctors in Europe
Approximately 5,000 doctors are said to have acquired a qualification as a homoeopath in Germany. Netzzeitung (an online paper) says that presently about 1 in every 40 doctors hold additional qualifications in "homoeopathy" in Germany. According to ECHAMP, about 2.5% of doctors in Germany, 8.3% in Italy, and 14% in Slovakia have a qualification in "homoeopathy". On the other hand, this quota is below 0.03% in Sweden, where only ten of almost 30,000 have an additional homoeopathic qualification.
Throughout Europe, 56,000 doctors were holding respective qualifications. An acceptance of homoeopathy so glaringly different in two industrialized nations like Germany and Sweden with a comparable health status indicates, on the one hand, that homoeopathy may be seen as dispensable without difficulty and without causing a relevant effect on a population's health. On the other hand it shows that the popularity of homoeopathy is not as much connected to scientific arguments or a probable efficacy, but rather to Weltanschauung, prejudice or tradition, since conclusive scientific arguments and proof of efficacy supporting the implementation of homoeopathy would have also convinced Swedish physicians.
The business with homeopathics
Germany and France are the most important markets for a homoeopathic and anthroposophic-homoeopathic medicine in Europe. Almost 60% of all medicines of these therapy directions produced in Europe were, sold add source[27] with a Europe-wide increase of 60% between 1995 and 2005 in these two countries. In Germany there was a turnover plus of 80%, in France 300%. The Europe-wide sales volume amounts to 1.7 billion Euros, about 7% of all medicine available without prescription. The revenues of the production amounted to about 930 million Euros, therefrom 810 million Euros for medicine in 2005. Measured against the manufacturer's prices about 268 million Euros of the EU sales were allotted to Germany, on France 294 million Euros. According to information from the weekly periodical of "Der Spiegel" the sales volume of homoeopathic remedies was at 400 million Euros in 2009. According to information from the federal association of the pharmaceutical industry the legal health insurance companies paid 9 million Euros for homoeopathic remedies. The subsequent costs are not, however, included for ineffective homoeopathic therapies here. The costs by homoeopathic first and subsequent case histories which must be usually paid by the patients are also not comparable with these costs. The market leading enterprise in Germany is the German homoeopathy union (DHU). The group with over 400 employees has developed out of the company Schwabe set up in 1961.
The most used homeopathic is Oscilococcinum C200. This remedy also is called the "20 million canard". The annual turnover for the product is 20 million dollars. The remedy is produced from duck liver, but only the liver of one single duck is used for the complete sales volume, and of this something is left: The potentization of C200 means that the ratio of liver to the solution 1 to 10 is with 400 zeros.
Homoeopathy is financially interesting for doctors
The payoff of "homoeopathic" benefits by doctors gets more and more attractive for these as the doctor newspaper reported already 2007. The compensation contains € 90 first case history, € 20 Repertorisation, € 20 analysis and € 45 subsequent case history. For these € 175 a set up specialist cares for 5 "conventional" patients for a whole quarter, regardless how often these appear in the practice. In principle, as a National Health patient one can take up homoeopathic performances at such illness forms "at which a cure or alleviation has to be expected by a specifical therapeutical response of potentially still available self-healing strengths".
Homoeopathy and controversial measles parties
2005 became known that supporters of the homoeopathy do not decline so-called measles parties generally. Quotation of a corresponding newspaper article: Homoeopathic doctors do not decline "measles parties" generally. At tradeoff of the possible side effects of a vaccination with the risks of an illness, an infection caused consciously "is worth a consideration, at an age between about three and eight years" said the Munich paediatrician Dr. Steffen Rabe.
It is a result of the vaccinating campaigns that in comparison with in the past more babies and adults fall ill at measles outbreaks today. The risk of falling ill with complications, such as a brain fever, because of measles was, however, higher with this group of people up to ten times, Rabe said. "The increased measles illness frequency with babies is an immediate result of the vaccinating politics", so Rabe. The last decision on the participation of a child in a "measles party" always rests with parents in the opinion of the doctor.
In the case of a measles illness the paediatrician recommends the complete renunciation of fever-reducing drugs since these possibly increase the complication risk. "The patient rather needs primarily silence and rest." In many cases, the illness has to be treated well with classic homoeopathy.
Studies on homoeopathy
The early studies
Already to life times of Hahnemann his teaching was controversial and aroused lively discussions and the first tests with homeopathics proceeded negatively. Hahnemann's readings couldn't be confirmed in repetitions of his original „medicine tests“. The famous cinchona experiment the teaching is based on was a mistake: Although cinchona lowers the body temperature, Hahnemann felt fevers after the taking. Possibly an allergic reaction. The non-blinded "drug examinations" without switching off a possible placebo effect by comparison with a fake medication are not acceptable scientifically either.
The homoeopathy studies in the time of the National Socialism
There were further examinations to the homoeopathy in the time of the National Socialism. The regime wanted a reorientation in the health service, the "new German medicine". Moreover, the criticism of jewished orthodox medicine got pure in National Socialist circles. Drug studies were done at different homoeopathic hospitals by the Reichsgesundheitsamt (RGA) between 1936 and 1939, much of them placebo checked. Above all the reliability of earlier medicine examinations and thus also the priority of the "pharmacological picture" developing on them should be investigated. The homoeopath Hanns Rabe (1890 - 1959), the internist Werner Siebert (1897 - 1951) and the pharmacology professors Gustav Kuschinsky (1904 - 1992) and Richard Bonsmann belonged to the study group. At that time the doctor and homoeopath Fritz Donner (1896 - 1979) who was working in Berlin at the homoeopathic department of the Rudolf Virchow hospital, was involved substantially at these checks too. Extensive notes from Donner about the RGA examinations and previous studies became known as Donner report for the homoeopathy and are available today in the original in the "homoeopathy archives" of the institute for history of the medicine of the Robert Bosch foundation in Stuttgart. But nothing positive for the homoeopathy came of the government-supported examinations. Double blinded experiments were carried out with Silicea C30, for example. The result: Verum and placebo caused equal much symptoms. It was not possible for the homoeopaths present to distinguish verum and placebo. In 1938/39 clinical attempts with homeopathics were also accomplished with negative results in the Robert Koch hospital in Berlin. The homoeopath Rabe reacted with the assumption that [...] homoeopathy is no pharmacotherapeutic method, as assumed till now, but a form of psychotherapy [...]. Fritz Donner in a memory protocol: Truthfully one would have to answer that during the medicine examination nothing came out and that a reaction speaking for a therapeutical effect of the used medicines never has occurred in the clinical tests with a patient. Nevertheless it was announced officially that certain difficulties would have manifested themselves so that one must start newly. The war prevented however further research. Donner expressed himself more considerably later within the 1960s: He called the examination a total fiasco for the homoeopathy.
Versions of this article in other languages
- Deutsch: Homöopathie
- Nederlands: Homeopathie