MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

homeopathy

1 2 3 19

Some homeopaths advise parents not to vaccinate their kids and use homeopathic vaccinations or ‘homeo-prophylaxis’ instead. Despite the fact that it has long been clear that this approach is not effective and even dangerous, some homeopathic pharmacies have been selling the remedies used for that purpose. In the UK, Helios has been at the forefront of this dubious trade. But, a few days ago, they have changed their ways.

Here is a screenshot of the results of a search for the word ‘vaccine’, with the ‘remedies’ that were subsequently removed highlighted:

Helios vaccine remedies 1

Click the image to enlarge.

This is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. The question I ask myself is WHY DID HELIOS MAKE THIS CHANGE? Was it because they had to? Or was it because they saw the light and realised that the evidence did not support the remedies in question?

If it was the latter motivation, we will soon know – because, in that case, they will surely do the same with the entire rest of their remedies.

Why?

BECAUSE THERE IS NOT GOOD EVIDENCE THAT ANY HIGHLY DILUTED HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY IS MORE THAN A PLACEBO.

It has been reported that ‘Boots the Chemist’ have filed several legal complaints against The Guardian in relation to articles published by the paper in relation to its April 2016 investigation. The Guardian articles in question alleged that Boots, the UK’s largest pharmacy chain, had placed undue pressure on its pharmacists to perform medicines use reviews so that it could claim the maximum payments possible from the NHS. In other words, The Guardian implied that Boots was trying to get more money from our NHS than might have been due.

Personally, I am always uneasy when I hear that someone takes legal action on such matters. I think that legal complaints of such a nature can turn out to be counter-productive, both in general and in this particular instance.

Why?

There could be several reasons. For instance, such actions might give someone the idea of filing complaints against Boots. I am sure it is not difficult to find reasons for that.

In the realm of alternative medicine, for example, someone might question whether selling homeopathic remedies in Boot’s section ‘pharmacy and health’ is not misleading. These remedies might be seen by a naïve customer as masquerading as medicines. As readers of this blog know all too well, they do not, in fact, contain anything (other than lactose) that has any pharmacological activity. Therefore Boots should best market them in the category of ‘confectionary’.

One might even suspect that Boots are fully aware of all this. After all, a spokesperson for the company stated years ago during a parliamentary inquiry: “I have no evidence to suggest that they [homeopathic remedies sold by Boots] are efficacious …”

And it is also not the first time that Boots have been challenged for selling products they know to be placebos. This is what The Guardian reported in 2008 about the issue: “Ernst accuses the company [Boots] of breaching ethical guidelines drawn up by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, by failing to tell customers that its homeopathic medicines contain no active ingredients and are ineffective in clinical trials.”

A similar void of evidence also applies to Boot’s wide range of Bach Flower Remedies and aromatherapy oils.

Or am I wrong?

Perhaps Boots want to post links to the evidence in the  comment section below?

I am always keen to learn and only too happy to change my mind in view of new, compelling evidence!

Boots also sell a very wide range of herbal medicines, and here the situation is quite different: herbal medicines actually contain molecules that might have pharmacological effects, i. e. they might heal or might harm you. And many of these products imply indications for which they should be taken. I will pick just one example to explain: HERBAL SLIM AID.

Yes, you are absolutely correct – this product is (according to its name) not for gaining weight, it’s for reducing it. Each coated tablet contains 45 mg of extract (as dry extract) from Bladderwrack thallus (Fucus vesiculosus L.) (5:1) (equivalent to 225 mg of Fucus) Extraction solvent: water, ,30 mg Dandelion Root (Taraxacum officinale Weber ex Wigg), 27 mg of extract (as dry extract) from Boldo leaf (Peumus boldus Molina) (4-6:1) (equivalent to 108-162 mg of Boldo leaf) Extraction solvent: Methanol 70% v/v, 10 mg Butternut Bark (Juglans cinerea L.).

Now, I thought I know quite a bit about herbal slimming aids, after all, we had a research focus on this topic for several years and have published about a dozen papers on the subject. But oddly, I cannot remember that this mixture of herbs has been shown to reduce body weight.

Perhaps Boots want to post evidence for the efficacy and safety of this product as well?

I certainly hope so, and I would instantly withdraw any hint of a suspicion that Boots are selling unproven or disproven medicines.

Where is all this going?

I have to admit that am not entirely sure myself.

I suppose all I wanted to express was that it might be unwise to throw stones when one is sitting in a glass-house – a cliché, I know, but it’s true nevertheless.

 

 

 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:

None [except I don’t like those who easily take legal action against others]

Homeopaths assume lots of things; one of their main claims is, for instance, that the process of repeatedly diluting a remedy and vigorously shaking it at each step – they call this potentisation – renders it more potent. This is the famous MEMORY OF WATER’ theory of homeopathy. In Hahnemann’s own words: ‘…the power of a medicine in solution is much increased by intimate mixture with a large volume of fluid…’ And elsewhere he stated that ‘as the smallest quantity of medicine naturally disturbs the organism least, we should choose the very smallest doses, provided always that they are a match for the disease… hardly any dose of the homeopathically selected remedy can be so small as not to be stronger than the natural disease…’

Hahnemann’s explanation for this extraordinary assumption (which he claimed to have observed empirically) was that his remedies do not work through any material effects but via spirit-like energies. As this sounds a little silly in the light of modern science, homeopaths have been keen to find more rational support for their theories. Thus they have developed several ‘sciency’ concepts to explain the mode of action of their highly diluted homeopathic remedies. For instance that postulated that water can form secondary structures that hold some information of the original substance (stock), even if it has long been diluted out of the remedy. Alternatively, they claimed that the shaking of the remedy generates nano-particles or silicone-particles which, in turn, are the cause of the clinical effects.

Today, I want to assume for a minute, that one of these theories is correct – they cannot all be right, of course. Homeopaths regularly show us investigations that seem to support them, even though it only needs a real expert in the particular field of science to cast serious doubt on them. I will nevertheless assume that, after potentisation, the diluent retains information via nano-particles or some other phenomenon. For the purpose of this mind-experiment, I grant homeopaths that, in this respect, they are correct. In other words, let’s for a moment assume that the ‘memory of water’ theory is correct.

As I have been more than generous, I want homeopaths to return the favour and consider what this would really mean: information has been transferred from the stock to the diluent. Does that prove anything? Does it show that homeopathy is valid?

Could the homeopaths who make this assumption be equally generous and answer the following questions, please?

  1. How does a nano-particle of coffee, for instance, affect the sleep centre in the brain to make the patient sleep? Or how does a nano-particle of the Berlin Wall or a duck liver affect anything at all in the human body? The claim that information has been retained by the diluent is no where near to an explanation of a rational mode of action, isn’t it?
  2. Most homeopathic remedies are consumed not as liquids but as ‘globuli’, i. e.  tiny little pills made of lactose. They are prepared by dropping the liquid remedy on to them. The liquid subsequently evaporates. How is it that the information retained in the liquid does not evaporate with the diluent?
  3. The diluent usually is a water-alcohol mixture which inevitably contains impurities. In fact, a liquid C12 remedy most certainly contains dimensions more impurities than stock. These impurities have, of course, also been vigorously shaken, i. e. potentised. How can we explain that their ‘potency’ has not been beefed up at each dilution step? Would this not necessitate a process where only some molecules in the diluent are agitated, while all the rest remain absolutely still? How can we explain this fantastic concept?
  4. Some stock used in homeopathy is insoluble (for instance Berlin Wall). Such stock is not diluted but its concentration in the remedy is initially lowered by a process called ‘trituration’, a process which consists in grinding the source material in another solid material, usually lactose. I have granted you that potentisation works in the way you think. But how is information transferred from one solid material to another?
  5. Everything we drink is based on water containing molecules that have been inadvertently potentised in nature a million times and therefore should have hugely powerful effects on our bodies. How is it that we experience none of these effects each time we drink?

Now, homeopaths, let me propose a deal.

If you can answer these questions satisfactorily, I will no longer doubt your memory of water theory. If you cannot do this, I think you ought to admit that all your ‘sciency’ theories about the mode of action of highly diluted homeopathic remedies are really quite silly – more silly even than Hahnemann’s idea of a ‘spirit-like’ effect.

 

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (hay fever) is a common condition which can considerably reduce the quality of life of sufferers. Homeopathy is often advocated – but does it work?

A new study was meant to be an “assessment of the clinical effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the alleviation of hay fever symptoms in a typical clinical setting.”

The investigator performed a ‘clinical observational study’ of eight patients from his private practice using Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) self-evaluation questionnaires at baseline and again after two weeks and 4 weeks of individualized homeopathic treatment which was given as an add-on to conventional treatments.

The average MYMOP scores for the eyes, nose, activity and wellbeing had improved significantly after two and 4 weeks of homeopathic treatment. The overall average MYMOP profile score at baseline was 3.83 (standard deviation, SD, 0.78). After 14 and 28 days of treatment the average score had fallen to 1.14 (SD, 0.36; P<0.001) and 1.06 (SD, 0.25; P<0.001) respectively.

The author concluded as follows: Individualized homeopathic treatment was associated with significant alleviation of hay fever symptoms, enabling the reduction in use of conventional treatment. The results presented in this study can be considered as a step towards a pilot pragmatic study that would use more robust outcome measures and include a larger number of patients prescribed a single or a multiple homeopathic prescription on an individualized basis.

It is hard to name the things that are most offensively wrong here; the choice is too large. Let me just list three points:

  • The study design is not matched to the research question.
  • The implication that homeopathy had anything to do with the observed outcome is unwarranted.
  • The conclusion that the results might lend themselves to develop a pilot study is meaningless.

The question whether homeopathy is an effective therapy for hay fever has been tested before, even in RCTs. It seems therefore mysterious why one needs to revert to tiny observational studies in order to plan a pilot, and even less for an assessment of effectiveness.

There are few conditions which are more time-dependent than hay fever. Any attempt of testing the effectiveness of medical interventions without a control group seems therefore not just questionable but wasteful. Clinical studies absorb resources; even if the author was happy to waste his time, he should not assume that he can freely waste the time, effort and availability of his patients.

Two final points, if I may:

  • An observational study of homeopathy for hay-fever without a control group might be utterly useless but it is still an investigation that requires certain things. As far as I can see, this study did not even have ethics approval nor is there a mention of informed consent. Strictly speaking, this makes it an unethical study.
  • If we allow research of this nature to take place and be published, we give clinical research a bad name and undermine the confidence of the public in science.

I am puzzled how such a paper could pass peer review and how an Elsevier journal could even consider publishing it.

The question whether pharmacists should sell unproven alternative medicines will not go away. On this blog, we have discussed it repeatedly, for instance here, here and here. The Australian Journal of Pharmacy’s latest poll shows that readers have their suspicions about the validity of naturopathic medicines, with a whopping 544 voters choosing the option, “No, there’s no evidence they work” at the time of writing.

This constitutes 65% of readers who took part in the poll. A significant minority – 193 readers, with 23% of the vote – said that pharmacies should stock these medicines as they are legitimate products. Five per cent said that while they questioned their efficacy, pharmacy should stock them; and 3% said they were unsure, but the public wanted them.

Taree pharmacist and member of Friends in Science and Medicine Ian Carr, who has spoken to the AJP several times in the last couple of weeks as debate has continued about the subject of naturopathy in pharmacy, said he was surprised and pleased at the strength of the No vote. “I looked at [the poll] on the first day, and there was definitely a majority saying these things have no evidence, but there was still above 30% saying yes, they were legitimate products,” Carr told the AJP. “That’s been dwarfed by a lot of people who’ve looked in, and it’s interesting to have that many people vote. “I’m glad that it seems to be becoming recognised that there’s a need for the evidence base in these things, and the difference between having a naturopathic product or supplement on the shelf, and having somebody there charging for their time, as a naturopath, dispensing advice without knowing the patient’s background and without an intervention by a registered pharmacist.” He encouraged pharmacists concerned about the validity of naturopathy to consider what products and services they offer.

Where naturopaths are used, they should at least be expected to keep a record of products and advice dispensed, he says, similar to protocols around blood pressure and blood glucose monitoring. “If there’s going to be an insistence that naturopaths remain, that’s the way I’d like to see it: that the pharmacy has good records and oversight of what they’re doing. I think, given our connection to the PBS and the fact that we as pharmacists are looking for a more serious role as part of the health care team generally, and having a more active and integrative role, we would be silly to fritter it away on peripheries like naturopathy. I personally see the opportunities in evidence-based medicine and what flows from that, rather than trying to make up dollars. We’re more likely to lose control of pharmacy if we don’t guard it jealousy.”

One of the suppliers of CAM products to pharmacies responded to the article by stating the following:

“The complementary and alternative medicine (CAMs) sector and its role in healthcare management continues to be hotly debated by the media. Rather than dissuade this debate, we actively encourage this discussion, as it shines a light on many issues which need to be addressed. Of priority is the point that not all complementary and alternative medicine products are equal. As in many media articles, an incredibly wide spectrum of products are grouped under the label of ‘CAMs’. Products with specific clinical evidence, high-quality manufacturing processes and transparency on the sourcing of ingredients are not clearly identified from products without these qualities. Consumers and healthcare professionals are unable to distinguish this difference due to a lack of clear labelling. We agree with calls for CAMs products to be more thoroughly assessed, beyond being simply classified as ‘safe’. Healthcare professionals and consumers deserve this information and are indeed asking for it. Consumers are aware of the impact of their choices and that their demand drives industry change. History is littered with recent examples where consumer awareness has changed the marketplace for the better. Consumer-driven change in the CAMs industry IS possible, it just needs to be supported. The Australian CAMs industry needs to increase healthcare professional and consumer education on the importance of evidence-based CAM products; on what ‘evidence-based’ means and what this difference delivers… Healthcare professionals are key to helping their patients understand that not all CAMs or natural medicine products are equal… It takes time to change the way people see CAMs and natural medicines – but it is of inherent value for the consumer. Something, we believe, is integral to the future of the industry.”

The arguments are clearest, if we focus on a specific type of alternative medicine and spell out what precisely we are talking about. The one that comes to mind is, of course, homeopathy. In my view, there is no good reason why pharmacists should sell homeopathic remedies. It is comforting to know that the Chief Scientist of the UK Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Professor Jayne Lawrence, agrees; she stated about a year ago that “the public have a right to expect pharmacists and other health professionals to be open and honest about the effectiveness and limitations of treatments. Surely it is now the time for pharmacists to cast homeopathy from the shelves and focus on scientifically based treatments backed by clear clinical evidence.”

And what has changed since?

Nothing, as far as I can see – but please correct me, if I am wrong.

I think it is important that we remind the community pharmacists everywhere that they have their very own codes of ethics and that they need to adhere to them. If they don’t, they tacitly agree that they are not really healthcare professionals but mere shop-keepers.

I have previously reported about the issue of homeopathy on the NHS in Liverpool here. Since then, the NHS Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) has conducted a consultation on whether to continue funding. Personally, I think such polls are a daft waste of resources.

Why?

I will explain in a moment; first read the (slightly shortened) summary:

In November 2015, NHS Liverpool CCG Governing Body stated a preference to decommission the homeopathy service and commenced the consultation exercise with the intent to ascertain how the public felt about it. This report was written by the Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, and includes independent analysis of the consultation activities.

The consultation ran from 13th November – 22nd December 2015. The two main methods used were 1) a survey available online and in paper format. It was completed by 743 individual respondents and, of those who provided a valid postcode, 68% (323 individuals) lived within the Liverpool CCG area, 2) a small consultation event held on 4th December 2015 facilitated by Liverpool John Moores University. The event was attended by 29 individuals, the majority of whom were patients and staff from the Liverpool Medical Homeopathic Service. Eighteen of the participants at this event resided in Liverpool.

Two thirds of survey respondents (66%; 380 respondents) said they would never use homeopathy services in the future. The reasons for this included the lack of evidence and scientific basis of homeopathy; negative personal experiences of homeopathy; and believing it was an inappropriate use of NHS funding. Those who would be likely to use it in the future (28%) felt they wanted to be able to choose an alternative to conventional medicine; felt it was value for money for the NHS; appreciated the time, care and holistic consultation; and discussed their own positive experiences. Sixty six per cent of survey respondents (111) who had used homeopathy in the past reported an excellent or good experience. Those who reported a positive experience (66%) felt that homeopathy had improved their health where conventional medicine had not, and participants valued that the homeopathic practitioner had treated their emotional as well as their physical needs. Those who reported a below average or poor experience (31%) felt homeopathy had not improved their medical condition and some felt they had been misled and had not been told the remedy contained no active ingredients.

At the consultation event, the majority of the 29 participants were homeopathy service users and they described a positive experience of homeopathy and the ability to choose ‘holistic’ and non-pharmaceutical treatment. Participants also questioned what services they could use if they were unable to access homeopathy on the NHS and were concerned and angry about the service potentially being decommissioned. A small number of participants at this event agreed with the view that there is a lack of evidence regarding efficacy and felt it was an inappropriate use of NHS funds that would be better spent on other, more effective services.

Of the survey respondents, 73% (541 individuals) chose the option to stop funding all homeopathy services; when including only Liverpool residents in the analysis this decreased to 64%.  Twenty three per cent of survey respondents (170 individuals) wanted to continue to fund homeopathy services in Liverpool (either at current levels or to increase the budget); when only including Liverpool residents this proportion increased slightly to 30%. At the end of the consultation event the participants in the room (29 individuals) were asked to vote on their preferred funding option; twenty two participants (76%) wanted to continue the service and increase the maximum funding limit; three participants (14%) wanted to stay with the current situation and three participants (10%) wanted to stop funding the service.

There was some tension in what those in the consultation saw as acceptable and appropriate evidence about the effectiveness of homeopathy. Many participants in the survey and at the event reported their positive experience or anecdotal evidence as “proof” that homeopathy is effective.  There was a low understanding about how scientific research is conducted or evaluated. The NHS try to base funding decisions on rigorous, high-quality, unbiased, peer-reviewed research, however, the CCG is required to account of all evidence, including patient experience, when funding or discontinuing services.

Across the survey and the consultation event there was some confusion about what types of treatment come under the heading of “homeopathy”, with participants making reference to a range of herbal remedies and supplements. Iscador (a mistletoe extract) may be, in some cases, provided as a complementary treatment for patients with cancer, however, this is not a homeopathic remedy. There was also discussion (in the event and in the survey responses) about other herbal remedies and supplements.

END OF SUMMARY

So, why do I not think highly about exercises of this kind?

In general, surveys are tricky and often very dodgy research tools. Particularly in alternative medicine, they are as popular as they are useless. The potential problems arise from the way the methodology is often applied. For instance, sampling is crucial. If, like in the present case, no rigorous sampling techniques are applied, the results will inevitably be unreliable in reflecting the views of a population.

The findings of the survey above could easily be little more than a reflection of which camp had a better PR. Homeopaths usually are very good on such occasions at persuading others for homeopathy. In this case, the results show that, despite their best efforts, the overall vote was not positive for homeopathy. What we don’t know is whether this is a reflection on the ‘will of the people’. It could be that the public is much more against funding nonsense than this poll suggests.

I would also argue that letting people vote about the availability of medical interventions is nonsensical. The value of healthcare technologies is not determined by such ‘beauty contests’; the value depends on the scientific evidence, and that is not readily evaluated by non-experts. Imagine: next we might vote for or against bone-marrow transplants; who has the expertise to cast such a vote?

Oh yes, and the ‘small consultation’ – what was that supposed to be. Probably just an exercise in political correctness. Nobody in their right mind can have expected any meaningful insight coming from it.

Finally, I dispute that ‘patients’ experience’ is the same as ‘evidence’, as the summary above seems to claim. This is just nonsense. evidence is something entirely different from experience.

But politicians will disregard all this. They will say ‘the public has decided’ and will stop funding homeopathy on the NHS in Liverpool. More by coincidence than by design, this survey went into the right direction. Now one can only hope that the rest of the country will follow suit – on evidence, not on dodgy pseudo-evidence from surveys.

WHAT IS THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN TO HOMEOPATHS?

This might seem like a strange question, but I think it is quite interesting… bear with me.

The worse, you might think, is that the we all agree that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. Apart from the fact that this already is a broad consensus shared by virtually everyone in healthcare (except the homeopaths, of course), I think this is not the worst that could happen to homeopaths. They simply ignore the consensus, continue much as before and carry on earning a living by fooling the public (and often themselves as well).

No, the worse is the opposite of the above. The worse is that we all accept the homeopaths’ view. The worse is to say: Very well, we agree for the moment that your remedies are highly effective. And therefore we need to regulate them just as any other medicine.

In our yesterday’s response to the German homeopaths’ statement affirming the effectiveness of homeopathy, we tried to express exactly that. Here is the passage I am referring to:

Wenn dies für Homöopathen also so eindeutig ist, dann können die zuständigen Institutionen in den Arzneimittel-Gesellschaften (BfArM, AMG) Homöopathika genau so bewerten wie normale Medikamente…  die Politik sollte die Homöopathen bei ihrem eigenen Wort nehmen und sie denselben Prüfverfahren unterwerfen wie alle anderen Behandlungsverfahren auch.

And this is my (somewhat liberal) translation:

If homeopathy’s effectiveness is so crystal clear, the regulators should assess homeopathic remedies just like normal drugs…  politicians and regulators should take homeopaths by their own word and should apply the same standards as for all other medicines.

In the past, homeopaths have always wanted the cake and eat it; they pleaded that their remedies are so special and therefore they need special regulations and extra considerations. Because of these, they were sheltered and escaped any legal or ethical obligations to demonstrate effectiveness. This introduced an unjustified and regressive double standard with was detrimental to good healthcare, medical ethics and scientific progress.

Now that homeopaths (the Germans are merely an example, other countries’ homeopaths are much the same) have agreed on what they think is solid scientific proof, it is right and necessary to remove the special protection which homeopathy used to enjoy. Let’s for the moment accept the homeopaths’ argument (‘homeopathy is effective just like other medicines) and then force them to deliver the proof of their opinion according to the standards all medicines must be judged by!

That would surely be the end of all this nonsense, and homeopaths would find themselves hoisted by their own petard.

 

The German Association of Homeopaths (Deutscher Zentralverein Homoeopathischer Aerzte) just issued a press-release explaining that they have recently determined that homeopathy works.

Well, aren’t we relieved!

Otherwise, we would have had to assume they are all quacks.

Their statement is based on what they consider a thorough analysis of the published evidence. As the whole document is about 60 pages long, I will not bother you with all the details. Instead, I will focus on what they say about systematic reviews/meta-analyses in the press-release:

Eine Betrachtung der Meta-Analysen zur Homöopathie zeigt überwiegend statistisch signifikante Ergebnisse gegenüber Placebo, die auf eine spezifische Wirksamkeit potenzierter Arzneien hinweisen. Je nach den verwendeten Selektionskriterien werden hierbei unterschiedliche Studien in die Auswertung eingeschlossen. Diese Befunde werden von den Autoren der jeweiligen Meta-Analysen zum Teil stark relativiert. Die angeführten Vorbehalte entsprechen hierbei nicht immer den üblichen wissenschaftlichen Standards.

Let me translate this for you: An assessment of the meta-analyses of homeopathy shows mostly significant results compared to placebo which indicates a specific effectiveness of potentised remedies. Depending on the selection criteria, various studies are included in the evaluation. These results are relativized by the authors of the respective meta-analyses. The listed caveats do not always reflect the usual scientific standards.

You think my English has deteriorated or my brain gone soft? No, it’s their German! It makes almost no sense at all.

Therefore, I am afraid, we need to briefly go into the hefty document after all. Their chapter on meta-analyses concludes as follows: Insgesamt ergibt sich hinsichtlich der bis dato publizierten maßgeblichen Meta-Analysen zur Homöopathie, dass in vier von fünf Fällen tendenziell eine spezifische Wirksamkeit potenzierter Arzneimittel über Placebo hinaus erkennbar ist. That makes (linguistically) a little more sense: Overall, it emerges that the currently published decisive meta-analyses show, in 4 of 5 cases, that a specific effectiveness of potentised remedies is noticeable.

In other words, it is now proven, homeopathic remedies work beyond placebo!!!

But how can this be?

Did the NHMRC not just do a similar analysis concluding that “the evidence from research in humans does not show that homeopathy is effective for treating the range of health conditions considered… homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.

Obviously ‘down under’ they don’t know how to evaluate published data!

Or could it be that the Germans are mistaken? Or are they perhaps joking?

Let’s have a look!

The Germans selected (cherry-picked) 5 meta-analyses which they believed to be ‘decisive’, while the Australian panel of independent experts (funded by government) assessed 57 meta-analyses and systematic reviews (all they found via extensive literature searches).

But the German evaluation was done by homeopaths (and financed by a homeopathic lobby group)! And they understand homeopathy best and would not have a bias or conflict of interest, would they?

[FOR A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS, SEE HERE (in German)]

Anyone who really wants to get an insight into the ‘homeopathic mind-set’ should read the regular newsletter ‘HOMEOPATHY 4 EVERYONE’. Its current issue is focussed on cardiology. An article on coronary heart disease, a condition that kills about 40% of the population, informs us how homeopaths tackle this killer-disease:

If anything permanent is to be accomplished by treatment, a most careful examination of the individual case must be made. Not the attack alone, but the habits of the patient, his family history and environments must all be studied in every possible light. In the management, each case must be considered separately and the causes that excite an attack sought after. Many of these patients already have recognized the cause in their own case and often it is some irregularity of diet, exercise or mental condition. Many times it is not an easy matter to control the mental state, as the worry and strain of business life presses upon many of these patients, and is responsible for many cases of arterial degeneration that give rise to apoplexy, Bright ‘s disease, aneurysm or angina pectoris. The age and occupation of the patient, and the condition of the vascular system should be taken into consideration.

Following an attack the condition of the heart may require absolute rest, from a day to a week or more; this is especially true if the attacks are precipitated by a slight degree of exercise, which shows that the heart is not able to propel the blood under anything but normal conditions. Under no condition should quick movements and strong emotions be associated. Steady quiet exercise as walking upon level ground is beneficial. If the cardiac weakness is such as to forbid this, massage, or the resistance exercise of the Schott’s method may be tried. This exercise should not follow immediately after a meal.

But this is not all. There are plenty more papers on life-threatening cardiac conditions. Take the article on pericarditis for instance. This is how homeopaths are told how to treat this medical emergency:

Remedies that may be indicated are as follows: If traumatic, Arnica. For the inflammatory outset, Aconite or Vera- trum viride. The anguish of Aconite distinguishes its inflammation from that attending the stupor of Veratrum. For the pain Bryonia or Spigelia. They may be indicated in this order, Bryonia for the first stage and Spigelia for the subsequent myalgia. In these cases there may be met with indications for Belladonna (its flushed face), Arsenicum (dyspnoea on lying down), Digitalis (its weak pulse), Cactus (severe myalgia) or Kali carb (stitching pains). General symptoms may call for Colchicum, Aesculus, Kali iod., Cimicifuga, Kahnia, Squilla

A further article tackles diseases of the blood vessels. The article on thrombosis informs the homeopath that

Thrombosis is a blocking of the local circulation either spontaneously, after injuries or from slow and imperfect circulation forming a clot. In thrombosis the part becomes pale and edematous. The remedies are Aconite for first stage. Hamamelis, Lachesis or Lycopodium may be indicated. If suppuration threatens Sulphur or Hepar.  Rest and a supporting diet.

The same article also tells us how to treat aneurysms:

Select the remedy carefully. Lycopodium 12 has cured aneurism of the carotid (Hughes). If the attack is due to a sudden strain or injury, Arnica; if from fear or fright, Aconite; if from syphilis, Mercurius, Kali hydr. or Nitric acid; if from alcoholism, Arsenicum or Nux vomica; if from fatty degeneration, Phosphorus; if from fibrous inflammation and degeneration, Bryonia; if there is great arterial excitement and delirium, Veratrum viride; if circulation sluggish, Digitalis. Secale has cured aneurism. Consult Carbo veg., Spigelia. See Heart Therapeutics.

After reading the entire issue, I was not sure whether this wasn’t a hoax. Are we supposed to laugh or to cry? Personally I did giggle a lot while reading this. But if I imagine for a minute that some homeopaths might take this seriously, I am not far from crying.

Yes, I think he does deserve to join this fast-expanding club which, so far, consists of the following people:

Simon Mills

Gustav Dobos

Claudia Witt

George Lewith

John Licciardone

They have been admitted mostly because they have demonstrated that they exclusively or mostly publish positive results about alternative medicine. Therefore, their ‘TRUSTWORTHYNESS INDEX’ is remarkable.

With Peter Fisher, things are a little different, and in a way much more convincing. He also has a remarkable publication record, of course. As the Queen’s homeopath, he is a stark defender of homeopathy. He has just under 100 Medline-listed articles in this area, and, if I am not mistaken, only one of them cast any doubt on the effectiveness of homeopathy.

Peter is also the long-term editor of the journal HOMEOPATHY, and he used this position to fire me from its editorial board. Furthermore, he has been shown to have an unusual attitude towards telling the truth. But the decider for his admission to THE ALT MED HALL OF FAME was the following recent interview for NATURALLYSAVVY where he shows himself as a fierce defender of science, evidence-based medicine and critical thinking:

Andrea Donsky: I understand you arrived yesterday from England. I’m curious what you take for jetlag?

Peter Fisher: We have a traditional combination that we use for jetlag, which is arnica montana, and cocculus indicus. So arnica is something that is traditionally used for bruises, and cocculus is used for sleep problems. So arnica and cocculus combined, 6CH every hour or two, helps with jetlag.

Andrea Donsky: I read about the incredible work you do as an Integrative Medicine Doctor so I thought we would start today’s interview with having you explain what that means.

Peter Fisher: Simply put, it means the best of both worlds: the best of conventional, and the best of complementary medicine. There is also a much longer and more complicated definition, but essentially it’s integrating complementary medicine in care packages to avoid some of the worst excesses of conventional medicines, like over-drugging, and excess use of medication.

Andrea Donsky: I know you don’t see patients with the common cold or flu, but if you did, what would be your protocol?

Peter Fisher: I’ve done quite a lot of research on the flu. It’s quite clear that conventional treatments don’t work all that well, and may even prolong the flu. Most of the conventional treatments push the symptoms down [suppress them] and actually prolong the illness.

Andrea Donsky: So something like Oscillococcinum would be a perfect thing to recommend to people.

Peter Fisher: Yes, and other homeopathic combinations that can speed up the resolution, relieve the symptoms, and make the flu go away quicker.

Andrea Donsky: Tell me a little bit about the European way of practicing medicine. I remember hearing that in Europe doctors prescribe homeopathy alongside medication. Is this true?

Peter Fisher: It varies widely between countries. In France, Germany, and increasingly in Spain, it is the case, but not so much in the UK. A lot of doctors do incorporate it in their practice and they integrate homeopathy when it seems appropriate, but they also use antibiotics and other drugs when they feel it is appropriate.

Andrea Donsky: Do you often approach these skeptics and say: “Listen, you are wrong because there is research behind it!”

Peter Fisher: I will debate with anybody, anytime. The trouble is, skeptics don’t like that because they always lose. I’ve been involved in a series of debates with “so called” skeptics. But many well-known skeptics avoid me because they lose the debate. What they prefer to do is to blog, or tweet, so they can make nasty sneering public remarks and you can’t come back at them. If it’s a proper debate, I say my piece, you say your piece, there’s somebody there to make sure that it’s fair play, and that could be in a journal, it could be in a lower court, I don’t care. There was a big court case in the U.S. that was resolved in September where that happened. An allegation was made that false claims were being made for homeopathic medicines and they lost the case…homeopathy won!

Andrea Donsky: Tell us how you came to be a physician to Her Majesty the Queen.

Peter Fisher: There’s a long tradition of the Royal Family having a homeopathic physician. It actually goes back 150 years to Queen Victoria and her beloved Prince Albert. The founder of our hospital was Prince Albert’s father’s doctor. There has been an official homeopathic physician treating the Royal Family since the 1930s. It’s been me since 2001.

Andrea Donsky: It is nice to hear that the Royal Family is open to integrative medicine. Do you just treat the Queen, or the whole family? I read that Prince Charles eats organic and has an organic garden so I am assuming he is quite open to it as well.

Peter Fisher: I treat the entire family. I think Kate and Will are too young and healthy so they don’t need medicine. But the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, is very friendly, and he is more than willing to stick his neck out to actually say things. He has spoken at the World Health Assembly, which is the AGN of the World Health Organization. So he’s really quite fond of integrative medicine.

Andrea Donsky: I think that’s incredible. As a conventionally trained physician, how did you become interested in homeopathy?

Peter Fisher: At the end of the Cultural Revolution I went to visit China. I was a medical student at the time, and I remember the moment when it became clear to me. I was in the operating room of a small Chinese provincial town and there was a woman lying on the operating table with her entire abdomen open, fully conscious talking to the anesthetist with three needles in her left ear.

Andrea Donsky: Acupuncture needles?

Peter Fisher: Yes.

Andrea Donsky: That’s amazing.

Peter Fisher: The needles were connected to a little electrical box. I thought, “That doesn’t happen. They didn’t tell us about this at Cambridge.” I went to the best medical school, Cambridge, a very elite medical school, and I just thought, “This can’t happen. This doesn’t happen.” That experience is what made me think that there was more to medicine than what we were taught in medical school. Then a few years later, I became ill myself. I was still a medical student so I went to see a very distinguished professor at my medical school who made a precise diagnosis and said, “Tough, nothing can be done.” So my friends suggested I try homeopathy, and I did, and it helped. So it snowballed from there.

Andrea Donsky: Oftentimes we need to see things for ourselves and/or experience it to believe it.

Peter Fisher: Yes. I got almost obsessed by it, you know. In many ways as a scientific thing it shouldn’t work. I mean I do understand to that extent where the skeptics are coming from. There does appear to be a good reason why it can’t possibly work, and yet it does.

Andrea Donsky: Can you define what homeopathy is and how it works?

Peter Fisher: Homeopathy is based on the idea of like curing like. So you give a very small dose of something that could cause a similar illness if given an enlarged dose. Some people say it’s like holding a mirror up to nature. You’re saying to the body, “OK, this is what your problem is, this is what the disease is.” The idea is that the body has very strong self-healing capabilities; it is strong, but sometimes it can be stupid like when it comes to autoimmune diseases. In that case it is actually the body’s defensive mechanism being misdirected.

Andrea Donsky: Can you explain the difference between a single remedy and a combination?

Peter Fisher: A single remedy is one remedy and a combination is multiple. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of homeopathy. One is the so-called “keynote prescribing way,” where you prescribe for one or two keynote symptoms like a cold, sore throat, or runny nose.Then there is “constitutional medicine” where you are not so much treating the disease, but rather the person. So for example, if someone has insomnia, muscular aches and pains or even a cold and/or flu, they can take a combination of two, three, four, or even five different homeopathic medicines, which will likely cover the symptoms. This is more for self-treatment, rather than doctor prescribed.

Andrea Donsky: That makes sense. I like that there is a role in homeopathy for both self (like for the common cold) and expert prescribing.

Peter Fisher: Yes. It is one thing if someone has a short-term health issue, but it is another thing if they have a chronic complicated, multi-faceted issue. I mean one of the interesting things about homeopathy is the idea of treating the person, and not the disease

I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE MAJORITY OF MY READERS AGREE TO ADMIT DR FISHER TO THE ALT MED HALL OF FAME.

1 2 3 19
Recent Comments

Note that comments can now be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories