Sorry, but something I stated in my last post was not entirely correct!

I wrote that “I could not find a single study on Schuessler Salts“.

Yet, I do know of a ‘study’ of Schuessler Salts after all; I hesitate to write about it because it is an exceedingly ugly story that goes back to the ‘Third Reich’, and some people do not seem to appreciate me reporting about my research on this period.

The truth, however, is that I already did mention the Schuessler salts before on this blog: “…in 1941 a research unit was established in ‘block 5’ [of the Dachau Concetration Camp] which, according to Rascher’s biographer, Sigfried Baer, contained his department and a homeopathic research unit led by Hanno von Weyherns and Rudolf Brachtel (1909-1988). I found the following relevant comment about von Weyherns: “Zu Jahresbeginn 1941 wurde in der Krankenabteilung eine Versuchsstation eingerichtet, in der 114 registrierte Tuberkulosekranke homöopathisch behandelt wurden. Leitender Arzt war von Weyherns. Er erprobte im Februar biochemische Mittel an Häftlingen.” My translation: At the beginning of 1941, an experimental unit was established in the sick-quarters in which 114 patients with TB were treated homeopathically. The chief physician was von Weyherns. In February, he tested Schuessler Salts [a derivative of homeopathy still popular in Germany today] on prisoners.”

Wikipedia provides further details: [Im Dritten Reich] konnten erstmals mit staatlicher Billigung und Förderung Untersuchungen durchgeführt werden, in denen die behauptete Wirksamkeit „biochemischer“ Arzneimittel überprüft wurde. Solche Versuche fanden auch in den Konzentrationslagern Dachau und Auschwitz statt, unter Leitung des Reichsarztes SS Ernst-Robert Grawitz. Dabei wurden unter anderem künstlich herbeigeführte Fälle von Blutvergiftung und Malaria weitgehend erfolglos behandelt. Für die Häftlinge nahmen diese Experimente in den meisten Fällen einen tödlichen Ausgang.

My translation: During the Third Reich, it became possible for the first time possible to conduct with governmental support investigations into the alleged effectiveness of ‘biochemical’ Schuessler Salts. Such tests were carried out in the concentration camps of Dachau and Auschwitz under the leadership of Reichsarzt SS Ernst-Robert Grawitz. They involved infecting prisoners with sepsis and malaria and treating them – largely without success. Most of the prisoners used for these experiments died.

I also found several further sources on the Internet. They confirm what was stated above and also mention the treatment of TB with Schuessler Salts. Furthermore, they state that the victims were mostly Polish priests:

The last source claims that at least 28 prisoners died as a result of these unspeakably cruel experiments.

The most detailed account (and even there, it is just 2 or 3 pages) about these experiments that I could find is in the superb and extremely well-researched book ‘AUSCHWITZ, DIE NS MEDIZIN UND IHRE OPFER’ by Ernst Klee. In it (p 146), Klee cites Grawitz’s correspondence with Himmler where Grawitz discloses that, prior to the Dachau ‘Schuessler experiments’, there were also some in Auschwitz where all three victims had died. Apparently Grawitz tried to persuade Himmler to stop these futile and (even for his standards) exceedingly cruel tests; the prisoners suffered unimaginable pain before their deaths. However, Himmler reprimanded him sharply and instructed him to continue. Dr Kiesswetter was subsequently recruited to the team because he was considered to be an expert on the clinical use of Schuessler Salts.

[Another book entitled Der Deutsche Zentralverein homöopathischer Ärzte im Nationalsozialismus‘ also mentions these experiments. Its author claims that Weyherns was not a doctor but a Heilpraktiker (all other sources agree that he was a medic). In general, the book seems to down-play this deplorable story and reads like an attempt to white-wash German homeopathy during the Third Reich] .

Klee concludes his chapter by reporting the post-war fate of all the doctors involved in the ‘Schuessler experiments’:

Dr Waldemar Wolter was sentenced to death and executed.

Dr Hermann Pape disappeared.

Dr Rudolf Kiesswetter disappeared.

Dr Babor fled to Addis Abeba.

Dr Laue died.

Dr Heinrich Schuetz managed to become a successful consultant in Essen. Only in 1972, he was charged and tried by a German court to 10 years of jail. Several of his colleagues, however, certify that he was too ill to be imprisoned, and Schuetz thus escaped his sentence.

Why do I dwell on this most unpleasant subject?

Surely, this has nothing to do with today’s use of Schuessler Salts!

Do I do it to “smear homeopathy and other forms of complementary medicine with a ‘guilt by association’ argument, associating them with the Nazis“, as Peter Fisher once so stupidly put it?


I have other, more important reasons:

  • I do not think that the evidence regarding Schuessler Salts is complete without these details.
  • I believe that these are important historical facts.
  • I feel that the history of alternative medicine during the Third Reich is under-researched and almost unknown (contrary to that of conventional medicine for which a very large body of published evidence is now available).
  • I feel it should be known and ought to be much better documented than it is today.
  • I fear that we live in times where the memory of such atrocities might serve as a preventative for a resurgence of fascism in all its forms.

Yes, I did promise to report on my participation in the ‘Goldenes Brett’ award which took place in Vienna and Hamburg on 23/11/2017. I had been asked to come to Vienna and do the laudation for the life-time achievement in producing ridiculous nonsense. This year, the award went to the ‘DEUTSCHER ZENTRALVEREIN HOMOEOPATHISCHER AERZTE’ (DZVhÄ), the German Central Society of Homoeopathic Doctors.

In my short speech, I pointed out that this group is a deserving recipient of this prestigious negative award. Founded in 1829, the DZVhÄ  is a lobby-group aimed at promoting homeopathy where and how they can. It is partly responsible for the fact that homeopathy is still highly popular in Germany, and that many German consumers seem to think that homeopathy is an evidence-based therapy.

Cornelia Bajic, the current president of this organisation stated on her website that “Homöopathie hilft bei allen Krankheiten, die keiner chirurgischen oder intensivmedizinischen Behandlung bedürfen“ (homeopathy helps with all diseases which do not need surgical or intensive care), advice that, in my view, has the potential to kill millions.

The DZVhÄ also sponsors the publication of a large range of books such as ‘Was kann die Homoeopathie bei Krebs’ (What can homeopathy do for cancer?). This should be a very short volume consisting of just one page with just one word: NOTHING. But, in fact, it provides all sorts of therapeutic claims that are not supported by evidence and might seriously harm those cancer patients who take it seriously.

But the DZVhÄ does much, much more than just promotion. For instance it organises annual ‘scientific’ conferences – I have mentioned two of them previously here, here and here. In recent years one of its main activity must have been the defamation of certain critics of homeopathy. For instance, they supported Claus Fritzsche in his activities to defame me and others. And recently, they attacked Natalie Grams for her criticism of homeopathy. Only a few days ago, Cornelia Bajic attacked doctor Gram’s new book – embarrassingly, Bajic then had to admit that she had not even read the new book!

The master-stroke of the DZVhÄ , in my opinion, was the fact that they supported the 4 homeopathic doctors who went to Liberia during the Ebola crisis wanting to treat Ebola patients with homeopathy. At the time Bajic stated that “Unsere Erfahrung aus der Behandlung anderer Epidemien in der Geschichte der Medizin lässt den Schluss zu, dass eine homöopathische Behandlung die Sterblichkeitsrate der Ebola-Patienten signifikant verringern könnte” (Our experience with other epidemics in the history of medicine allows the conclusion that homeopathic treatment might significantly reduce the mortality of Ebola patients).

As I said: the DZVhÄ are a well-deserving winner of this award!


Malaria is an infection caused by protozoa usually transmitted via mosquito bites. Malaria is an important disease for homeopaths because of Hahnemann’s quinine experiment: it made him postulate his ‘like cures like’ theory. Today, many experts assume that Hahnemann misinterpreted the results of this experience. Yet most homeopaths are still convinced that potentised cinchona bark is an effective prophylaxis against malaria. Some homeopathic pharmacies still offer homeopathic immunisations against the infection. In several cases, this has caused people who believed to be protected fall ill with the infection.

Perhaps because of this long tradition, homeopaths seem to have difficulties giving up the idea that they hold the key to effective malaria prevention. An article published in THE INDIAN EXPRESS entitled ‘Research suggests hope for homoeopathic vaccine to treat malaria’ reminds us of this bizarre phenomenon:

…In a laboratory test set-up, an ultra-dilute homoeopathic preparation was prepared by extracting samples from Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria. The homoeopathic preparation was used in-vitro to check if it had anti-malarial activity… “Homoeopathy has been criticised for lack of scientific evidence. This lab-model test established that a medicine developed from an organism that causes malaria can be used to treat the infection,” said Dr Rajesh Shah, principal investigator in the research.

Following the tests, Shah is approaching the government in order to conduct a full-fledged clinical trial for the homoeopathic medicine. “We found that the homoeopathic medicine exhibited 65 per cent inhibition against malaria while chloroquine treatment has 54 per cent efficacy,” Shah claimed. The research was published in the International Journal of Medical and Health Research in July. It observed that the homoeopathic solution inhibited enzyme called hemozoin is known to have an anti-malarial effect…


I thought this story was both remarkable and odd. So I looked up the original paper. Here is the abstract:

The inventor has developed malaria nosode and has subjected it for evaluation of antimalarial activity in vitro assay along with few other homeopathy preparations. The potential antimalarial activity of the Malaria nosode, Malaria officinalis and China officinalis was evaluated by β-Hematin Formation Assay. The hemozoin content was determined by measuring the absorbance at 400 nm. The results were recorded as % inhibition of heme crystallization compared to negative control (DMSO) Malaria nosode, Malaria officinalis and China officinalis exhibited inhibition of hemozoin and the inhibition was greater than the positive control Chloroquine diphosphate used in the study. The study has shown anti-disease activity of an ultra-dilute (potentized) homeopathic preparation. The Malaria nosode prepared by potentizing Plasmodium falciparum organisms has demonstrated antimalarial activity, which supports the basic principle behind homeopathy, the law of similar.

Now I am just as puzzled!

Why would any responsible scientist advocate running a ‘full-fledged clinical trial’ on the basis of such flimsy and implausible findings?

Would that not be highly unethical?

Would one not do further in-vitro tests?

Then perhaps some animal studies?

Followed by first studies in humans?

Followed perhaps by a small pilot study?

And, if all these have generated positive results, eventually a proper clinical trial?

The answers to all these questions is YES.

But not in homeopathy, it seems!

There has been a flurry of legal actions against manufacturers of homeopathic products (mostly) in the US. Many of these cases seem to settle out of court which means that we hardly hear about them. Of those that go to court, most are being won by the plaintiffs, but unfortunately some are also lost.

The recent case of Allen v. Hyland’s, Inc. is such an incidence. The US lawyer Robert G Knaier has analysed this case in detail and recently published a paper about it. The article is fascinating and well worth reading in full.

Here I take the liberty to show you a (shorted) section of Knaier’s paper where he asks what went wrong:

… How did a jury decide that Hyland’s did not misrepresent the efficacy of its products? Surely, the court’s instruction that Hyland’s would be liable only if the plaintiffs proved homeopathy “cannot work” contributed to the result. So long as defense experts were able to propose ways that homeopathy might work, the jury was left with the difficult decision—for laypersons, in any event—of rejecting that testimony.

But should the jury ever have been put in the position of having to make that choice? Should the defense experts ever have been allowed to testify? Had the court in Allen granted the plaintiffs’ motions to exclude those experts, the case likely would have ended with a settlement. Without the ability to put on evidence supporting its products, Hyland’s may very well have recognized that it had no realistic chance of prevailing at trial. But the court denied those motions.

In this respect, the court erred. There can be little doubt that expert testimony in support of the efficacy of homeopathy fails tests of admissibility. Consider the Federal Rules of Evidence and the factors that courts should evaluate under Daubert and its progeny. Is testimony that homeopathy is effective “the product of reliable principles and methods”?

In other words, does it have a “reliable foundation”? Is “the reasoning or methodology underlying [it] . . . scientifically valid”?  As explained above, homeopathy’s core principles—provings, like cures like, and the law of minimum dose—are based on little more than Samuel Hahnemann’s late eighteenth-century speculations. They were not developed through, nor have they been validated by, controlled scientific studies… the principles and efficacy of homeopathy have been “tested” and “subjected to peer review and publication” — but they have consistently failed those tests and the scrutiny of that review process… Indeed, the FDA has stated that it simply is “not aware of scientific evidence to support homeopathy as effective.”

Thus, homeopathy’s “rate of error” is known, and far from gaining “general acceptance” in the scientific and medical community, it has gained near-universal condemnation. The defense of homeopathy, in some respects, presents a classic example of “unjustifiably extrapolat[ing] from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion.”  Advocates extrapolate from the efficacy of vaccines that similia similibus currentur has a sound scientific basis, and from the concept of hormesis that providing ultralow doses is well-founded methodology. But as one contemporary skeptic has explained, unlike homeopathic remedies, vaccines actually “contain measurable numbers of antigen molecules,” and “act by well-understood scientific mechanisms”; and hormesis, even in the limited circumstances in which it appears to operate, “describes a response to a low dose, not to no dose.”  As Martin Gardner noted many decades ago, the defense of homeopathy thus begins with plausible-sounding principles, and then “exaggerate[s] them to the point of absurdity.”  In other words, it impermissibly extrapolates to “unfounded conclusion[s].”

Finally, the defense of homeopathy glaringly fails to “account for obvious alternative explanations.” Do people who take homeopathic remedies sometimes feel better? Of course they do. But studies of homeopathy have overwhelmingly concluded that the reason for this is not that homeopathy is actually efficacious, but rather because it is “the ideal placebo.” It is cheap. It has no side effects (unless, as discussed below, it is adulterated). And practitioners spend substantial time with their “patients,” thus encouraging psychosomatic effects.

In the end, advocates of homeopathy may have little to stand on other than that many people—including some “experts” who would gladly be paid to testify—inexplicably seem to believe that it works. But this will not do. That homeopathy has many believers does not validate it as a scientifically sound “field of expertise,” or color it, against nearly 200 years of evidence to the contrary, as one “known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.”  As our Supreme Court perhaps most saliently observed, “general acceptance” of a principle cannot “help show that an expert’s testimony is reliable where the discipline itself lacks reliability.” As the Court explained, general acceptance of “principles of astrology or necromancy,” for example, would not transform those subjects into appropriately reliable subjects of expert testimony.  The Court could easily have added homeopathy to that list.

Thus, in allowing the jury to receive testimony about the principles of homeopathy—not as a matter of historic curiosity, but as a matter of scientific validity—the Allen court arguably abdicated its gatekeeping responsibility to screen out unreliable expert testimony. By permitting “experts” to testify in favor of a field the bases of which defy basic principles of biology, chemistry, and physics — indeed, in some respects “basic logical principles” — the “integrity and fairness of the trial process” was compromised.


I fully agree with Knaier. Allowing the ‘flat earth society’ to present to a court their views about the shape of our planet, while instructing the jury that they must accept them as ‘evidence’ (unless the plaintiff can prove it to be untrue) cannot be the right way forward. In fact, it is a method of preventing progress. Following this logic, I cannot imagine the proponents of any absurdity – however ridiculous – to not be victorious in court.

Knaier’s ultimate conclusion is, I think correct: “Trial courts have robust power and clear responsibility to preclude litigants from introducing irrelevant and unreliable evidence in support of purportedly scientific claims… To the extent that courts continue abdicating their evidentiary gatekeeping role in this way, they may contribute to a waste of time and resources, financial harm to consumers, and risks to public health. But to the extent that litigants and courts strengthen their spines in this regard, take seriously the dangers of unfounded expert testimony, and make genuine efforts to seek and grant its exclusion, they might contribute to the health and well-being of both the courts and those who turn to them for help.”

Some doctors use homeopathy, and for proponents of homeopathy this has always been a strong argument for its effectiveness. They claim that someone who has studied medicine would not employ a therapy that does not work. I have long felt that this view is erroneous.

This article goes some way in finding out who is right. It was aimed at describing the use of homeopathy by physicians working in outpatient care, factors associated with prescribing homeopathy, and the therapeutic intentions and attitudes involved.

All physicians working in outpatient care in the Swiss Canton of Zurich in the year 2015 (n = 4072) were approached. Outcomes of the survey were:

  • association of prescribing homeopathy with medical specialties;
  • intentions behind prescriptions;
  • level of agreement with specific attitudes;
  • views towards homeopathy including explanatory models,
  • rating of homeopathy’s evidence base,
  • the endorsement of indications,
  • reimbursement of homeopathic treatment by statutory health insurance providers.

The participation rate was 38%, mean age 54 years, 61% male, and 40% specialised in general internal medicine. Homeopathy was prescribed at least once a year by 23% of the respondents. Medical specialisations associated with prescribing homeopathy were: no medical specialisation (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.7-9.0), specialisation in paediatrics (OR 3.8 95% CI 1.8-8.0) and gynaecology/obstetrics (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.5-6.7).

Among prescribers, only 50% clearly intended to induce specific homeopathic effects, only 27% strongly adhered to homeopathic prescription doctrines, and only 23% thought there was scientific evidence to prove homeopathy’s effectiveness. Seeing homeopathy as a way to induce placebo effects had the strongest endorsement among prescribers and non-prescribers of homeopathy (63% and 74% endorsement respectively). Reimbursement of homeopathic remedies by statutory health insurance was rejected by 61% of all respondents

The authors concluded that medical specialties use homeopathy with significantly varying frequency and only half of the prescribers clearly intend to achieve specific effects. Moreover, the majority of prescribers acknowledge that effectiveness is unproven and give little importance to traditional principles behind homeopathy. Medical specialties and associated patient demands but also physicians’ openness towards placebo interventions may play a role in homeopathy prescriptions. Education should therefore address not only the evidence base of homeopathy, but also ethical dilemmas with placebo interventions.

These data suggest than many doctors use homeopathy as a placebo. And this is what I had always suspected. Certainly I did often employ it in this way when I still worked as a clinician. The logic of doing so is quite simple: there are many patients where, after running all necessary tests, you conclude that there is nothing wrong with them. You try your best to get the message across but it is not accepted by the patient who clearly wants to have a prescription for something. In the end, due to time pressure etc., you give up and prescribe a homeopathic remedy hoping that the placebo effect, regression towards the mean and the natural history of the condition will do the trick.

And often they do!

I do know that this is hardly good medicine and arguably even not entirely ethical, but it is the reality. If I found myself in the same situation again, I am not sure that I would not do something similar.

It was the very first sentence of the Boiron US website on Oscillococcinum (we have discussed this amazing product before) that caught my attention: “Homeopathy is a therapeutic method that uses diluted substances to relieve symptoms.” I think this is demonstrably wrong.

  • Homeopathy is a therapeutic method that uses mostly the complete absence of an ingredient, and not ‘diluted substances’; specifically, Oscillococcinum is a  C 200 potency ( 1: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) which means the likelihood of any substance being present is zero.
  • Homeopathy is, according to Hahnemann, not ‘to relieve symptoms’ but to tackle the root cause of the condition. Hahnemann meant it to be a causal and not a symptomatic treatment (the truth is that it neither relieves symptoms or the root cause of anything).

And then the website continued to puzzle me by stating this: “The active ingredients in homeopathic medicines include diluted plants, animals or minerals that relieve the same symptoms they cause at full strength (i.e., a micro dose of coffee bean helps to relieve nervousness).” This is wrong too, I think:

  • there is no active ingredient in homeopathic medicines,
  • many of the mother tinctures used in homeopathy cause no symptoms whatsoever,
  • a zero dose is not a micro dose,
  • homeopathic coffee does not relieve nervousness better than a placebo.

Now my interest was aroused and I decided to read on. This is what I found under the heading of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’:


Are there clinical studies on Oscillococcinum?

Yes. Two studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, show that Oscillococcinum helps to reduce the severity and shorten the duration of flu-like symptoms.1-2 The most recent study showed that 63 percent of the patients who took Oscillo at the onset of flu-like symptoms showed “clear improvement” or “complete resolution” of their symptoms after 48 hours, vs. 48% with a placebo.2

1Papp R, Schuback G, Beck E, et al. Oscillococcinum in patients with influenza-like syndromes: a placebo-controlled, double-blind evaluation. Br Homeopath J. 1998;87:69-76. 2Ferley JP, Zmirou D, D’Adhemar D, Balducci F. A controlled evaluation of a homeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like syndromes. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989;27:329-335.


Now, this is strange!

Why would they cite just two studies when there are several more? Surely they don’t want to be seen to be cherry picking!?!? The current Cochrane review by Mathie RT, Frye J, Fisher P., for instance, included 6 trials!

And what did this review show?

The authors concluded that “There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.”

Even though the authors of this Cochrane review are amongst the most ardent homeopathy-promoters on the planet (if not they would not have included this odd 2nd sentence in the above quote), this conclusion does not seem to please Boiron (Christian Boiron seems to have not much time for critical thinking; in a recent, short interview he opined that “Il y a un Ku Klux Klan contre l’homéopathie” THERE IS A KU KLUX KLAN AGAINST HOMEOPATHY).

After studying all this, I ask myself whether Boiron is telling the truth.

What do you think?




I have this minute learnt the following from this website:


“We have recently been asked questions about complementary and alternative medicines and treatments in general and homeopathy in particular.

“We would like to highlight our commitment to promoting the advancement of veterinary medicine upon sound scientific principles and to re-iterate the fundamental obligation upon our members as practitioners within a science-based profession which is to make animal welfare their first consideration. “In fulfilling this obligation, we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles. Veterinary surgeons should not make unproven claims about any treatments, including prophylactic treatments.

“Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles. In order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary rather than alternative to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based in sound scientific principles. It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession and the public’s confidence in the profession that any treatments not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles do not delay or replace those that do.”


I think this is excellent and thank everybody who contributed to achieving this victory of reason over quackery.

During Voltaire’s time, this famous quote was largely correct. But today, things are very different, and I often think this ‘bon mot’ ought to be re-phrased into ‘The art of alternative medicine consists in amusing the patient, while medics cure the disease’.

To illustrate this point, I shall schematically outline the story of a patient seeking care from a range of clinicians. The story is invented but nevertheless based on many real experiences of a similar nature.

Tom is in his mid 50s, happily married, mildly over-weight and under plenty of stress. In addition to holding a demanding job, he has recently moved home and, as a consequence of lots of heavy lifting, his whole body aches. He had previous episodes of back trouble and re-starts the exercises a physio once taught him. A few days later, the back-pain has improved and most other pains have subsided as well. Yet a dull and nagging pain around his left shoulder and arm persists.

He is tempted to see his GP, but his wife is fiercely alternative. She was also the one who dissuaded  Tom from taking Statins for his high cholesterol and put him on Garlic pills instead. Now she gives Tom a bottle of her Rescue Remedy, but after a week of taking it Tom’s condition is unchanged. His wife therefore persuades him to consult alternative practitioners for his ‘shoulder problem’. Thus he sees a succession of her favourite clinicians.

THE CHIROPRACTOR examines Tom’s spine and diagnoses subluxations to be the root cause of his problem. Tom thus receives a series of spinal manipulations and feels a little improved each time. But he is disappointed that the pain in the left shoulder and arm returns. His wife therefore makes another appointment for him.

THE ENERGY HEALER diagnoses a problem with Tom’s vital energy as the root cause of his persistent pain. Tom thus receives a series of healing sessions and feels a little improved each time. But he is disappointed that the pain in the left shoulder and arm returns. His wife therefore makes another appointment for him.

THE REFLEXOLOGIST examines Tom’s foot and diagnoses knots on the sole of his foot to cause energy blockages which are the root cause of his problem. Tom thus receives a series of most agreeable foot massages and feels a little improved each time. But he is disappointed that the pain in the left shoulder and arm returns. His wife therefore makes another appointment for him.

THE ACUPUNCTURIST examines Tom’s pulse and tongue and diagnoses a chi deficiency to be the root cause of his problem. Tom thus receives a series of acupuncture treatments and feels a little improved each time. But he is disappointed that the pain in the left shoulder and arm returns. His wife therefore makes another appointment for him.

THE NATUROPATH examines Tom and diagnoses some form of auto-intoxication as the root cause of his problem. Tom thus receives a full program of detox and feels a little improved each time. But he is disappointed that the pain in the left shoulder and arm returns. His wife therefore makes another appointment for him.

THE HOMEOPATH takes a long and detailed history and diagnoses a problem with Tom’s vital force to be the root cause of his pain. Tom thus receives a homeopathic remedy tailor-made for his needs and feels a little improved after taking it for a few days. But he is disappointed that the pain in the left shoulder and arm returns. His wife therefore tries to make another appointment for him.

But this time, Tom had enough. His pain has not really improved and he is increasingly feeling unwell.

At the risk of a marital dispute, he consults his GP. The doctor looks up Tom’s history, asks a few questions, conducts a brief physical examination, and arranges for Tom to see a specialist. A cardiologist diagnoses Tom to suffer from coronary heart disease due to a stenosis in one of his coronary arteries. She explains that Tom’s dull pain in the left shoulder and arm is a rather typical symptom of this condition.

Tom has to have a stent put into the affected coronary artery, receives several medications to lower his cholesterol and blood pressure, and is told to take up regular exercise, lose weight and make several other changes to his stressful life-style. Tom’s wife is told in no uncertain terms to stop dissuading her husband from taking his prescribed medicines, and the couple are both sent to see a dietician who offers advice and recommends a course on healthy cooking. Nobody leaves any doubt that not following this complex (holistic!) package of treatments and advice would be a serious risk to Tom’s life.

It has taken a while, but finally Tom is pain-free. More importantly, his prognosis has dramatically improved. The team who now look after him have no doubt that a major heart attack had been imminent, and Tom could easily have died had he continued to listen to the advice of multiple non-medically trained clinicians.

The root cause of his condition was misdiagnosed by all of them. In fact, the root cause was the atherosclerotic degeneration in his arteries. This may not be fully reversible, but even if the atherosclerotic process cannot be halted completely, it can be significantly slowed down such that he can live a full life.

My advice based on this invented and many real stories of a very similar nature is this:

  • alternative practitioners are often good at pampering their patients;
  • this may contribute to some perceived clinical improvements;
  • in turn, this perceived benefit can motivate patients to continue their treatment despite residual symptoms;
  • alternative practitioner’s claims about ‘root causes’ and holistic care are usually pure nonsense;
  • their pampering may be agreeable, but it can undoubtedly cost lives.

George Vithoulkas * (GV) is one of today’s most influential lay-homeopaths, a real ‘super guru’. He has many bizarre ideas; one of the most peculiar one was recently outlined in his article entitled ‘An innovative proposal for scientific alternative medical journals’. Here are a few excerpts from it:

…the only evidence that homeopathy can present to the scientific world at this moment are these thousands of cured cases. It is a waste of time, money, and energy to attempt to demonstrate the effectiveness of homeopathy through double blind trials.

… the international “scientific” community, which has neither direct perception nor personal experience of the beneficial effects of homeopathy, is forced to repeat the same old mantra: “Where is the evidence? Show us the evidence!” … the successes of homeopathy have remained hidden in the offices of hardworking homeopaths – and thus go largely ignored by the world’s medical authorities, governments, and the whole international scientific community…

… simple questions that are usually asked by the “gnorant”, for example, “Can homeopathy cure cancer, multiple sclerosis, ulcerative colitis, etc.?” are invalid and cannot elicit a direct answer because the reality is that many such cases can be ameliorated significantly, and a number can be cured…

A journal could invite a selected number of good prescribers from all over the world as a start to this project and let them contribute to their honest experience and results, as well as their failures. The possibilities and limitations would soon be revealed…

I admit that an argument against accepting cases is that it is possible that false or unreliable information could be provided. This risk could be minimized by preselecting a well-known group of good prescribers, who could be asked to submit their cases, at least in the first phase of such a radical change in the policy of the journals…

This way, instead of rejecting important homeopathic case studies, in the name of a dry intellectualism and conservatism, homeopathy journals (including alternative and complementary journals) could become lively and interesting: initiating debates and discussions on real issues of therapeutics in medicine…

Our own “Evidence Based Medicine” lies in the multitude of chronic cases treated with homeopathy that we can present to the world and on the better quality of life that such cures offer.


So, GV wants homeopathy to thrive by means of publishing lots of case reports of patients who benefitted from homeopathy. And he believes that this suggestion is ‘innovative’? It is not! Case reports were all the rage 150 years ago before medicine started to become a little more scientific. And today, there are several journals specialising in the publication of case-reports, hundreds of journals that like accepting them, as well as dozens of websites that do little else but publishing case reports of homeopathy.

But case reports essentially are anecdotes. Medicine finally managed to progress from its dark ages when we realised how unreliable case reports truly are. To state it yet again (especially for GV who seems to be a bit slow on the uptake): THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTE IS ANECDOTES, NOT EVIDENCE!

In the above article, GV claims that ‘it is a waste of time, money, and energy to attempt to demonstrate the effectiveness of homeopathy through double blind trials.’ That is most puzzling because, only a few years ago, he did publish this:

Alternative therapies in general, and homeopathy in particular, lack clear scientific evaluation of efficacy. Controlled clinical trials are urgently needed, especially for conditions that are not helped by conventional methods. The objective of this work was to assess the efficacy of homeopathic treatment in relieving symptoms associated with premenstrual syndrome (PMS). It was a randomised controlled double-blind clinical trial. Two months baseline assessment with post-intervention follow-up for 3 months was conducted at Hadassah Hospital outpatient gynaecology clinic in Jerusalem in Israel 1992-1994. The subjects were 20 women, aged 20-48, suffering from PMS. Homeopathic intervention was chosen individually for each patient, according to a model of symptom clusters. Recruited volunteers with PMS were treated randomly with one oral dose of a homeopathic medication or placebo. The main outcome measure was scores of a daily menstrual distress questionnaire (MDQ) before and after treatment. Psychological tests for suggestibility were used to examine the possible effects of suggestion. Mean MDQ scores fell from 0.44 to 0.13 (P<0.05) with active treatment, and from 0.38 to 0.34 with placebo (NS). (Between group P=0.057). Improvement >30% was observed in 90% of patients receiving active treatment and 37.5% receiving placebo (P=0.048). Homeopathic treatment was found to be effective in alleviating the symptoms of PMS in comparison to placebo. The use of symptom clusters in this trial may offer a novel approach that will facilitate clinical trials in homeopathy. Further research is in progress.

I find this intriguing, particularly because the ‘further research’ mentioned prominently in the conclusions never did surface! Perhaps its results turned out to be unfavourable to homeopathy? Perhaps this is why GV dislikes RCTs these days? Perhaps this is why he prefers case reports such as this one which he recently published:


An 81-year-old female patient was admitted in July 2015 to the Cardiovascular Surgery Department of a hospital in Bucharest for an aortic valve replacement surgery.

The patient had a history of mild hypertension, insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure NYHA 2, severe aortic stenosis, moderate mitral regurgitation, mild pulmonary hypertension, bilateral carotid atheromatosis with a 50% stenosis of the left internal carotid artery, complete right mastectomy for breast cancer (at that moment in remission).

After a preoperative evaluation and preparation, the surgery was completed with the replacement of the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis (Medtronic Hancock II Ultra no. 23) and myocardial revascularization by using a double aortic-coronary bypass.

The post-operatory evolution was a good one in terms of the heart disease. However, the patient did not regain consciousness after the anaesthesia, maintaining a deep comatose state (GCS 7 points – E1V2M4).

A brain CT was performed the third day postoperatively, showing no recent ischemic or haemorrhagic cerebral lesions, moderate diffuse cerebral atrophy and carotid atheromatosis.

After the surgery, the patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and was treated by using a multidisciplinary approach. The patient was treated with inotropic, antiarrhythmic, and diuretic drugs, insulin and antidiabetic drugs were used in order to keep the blood sugar levels under control. The patient was kept hydrated and the electrolytes balanced by using an i.v. line, prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary thromboembolism was performed by using low molecular weight heparin. Prophylaxis for bedsores was also performed by using a pressure relieve air mattress.

The patient went into acute respiratory distress, needing mechanical ventilation in order to maintain oxygenation.

Despite these complex and correctly performed therapeutic efforts, the patient did not regain consciousness and was still in a deep coma in the fourteenth day post-operatory (GCS 7 points – E1V2M4), without having a confirmed medical explanation.

At that point, the patient’s family requested a consult from a homeopathic specialist.

The homeopathic examination, which was performed in the fourteenth day postoperatively, revealed the following: old, comatose, tranquil patient, with pale and cold skin, with the need to uncover herself (the few movements that she made with her hands were to remove her blanket and clothes, as if she wanted more air – “thirst for air”), abdominal distension, and bloating.

The thorough evaluation of the patient and the analysis of her symptoms led us to the remedy most appropriate for this critical situation – Carbo Vegetabilis.

Homeopathic treatment was initiated the same day, by using Carbo Vegetabilis 200CH 7 granules twice a day, administered diluted in 20ml of water by using a nasogastric tube.

The patient’s evolution was spectacular. The next day after the initiation of the treatment (fifteenth day postoperatively) the patient was in a superficial coma (GCS 11 points – E2V4M5), and the following day she regained consciousness. Carbo Vegetabilis was administered in the same dose for a total of five days (including the nineteenth day postoperatively).

After these five days, the case was reassessed from a homeopathically point of view and the second evaluation revealed the following: severely dyspnoeic patient (even talking caused exhaustion) with pale skin, severe fatigue aggravated by the slightest movements, a weakness sensation located in the chest area, extreme lack of energy, the wish “to be left alone”.

Considering the state of general exhaustion the patient was in at that moment and her lack of energy, the homeopathic treatment was changed to a new remedy: Stanum metallicum 30CH 7 granules administered sublingually twice a day for a week.

After the administration of the second remedy, the patient’s general condition improved dramatically: she started eating, she was able to get up in a sitting position with only little help, her fatigue diminished significantly.

The patient was then transferred to a recovery clinic in Cluj-Napoca in order to continue the cardiovascular recovery treatment. During her three-week admission in the clinic, she followed an individualized cardiovascular recovery program, which led to her ability to walk short distances with minimal support and has was released from the hospital in September 2015.

The following weeks after release, the patient recovered almost entirely, both physically and mentally. She was able to retake her place in her family and in society in general.


One has to be a homeopath (one who is ignorant of the ‘post hoc propter hoc fallacy’) to believe in a causal link between the intake of the homeopathic remedy and the recovery of this patient. Thankfully, comatose patients do re-gain consciousness all the time! Even without homeopathy! But GV seems to not know that. In the discussion of this paper, he even states this: “ even after a well-conducted therapy, this condition leads to the death of the patient.” Is it ethical to publish such falsehoods, I wonder?

As far as the case report goes, the homeopathic remedy might even have delayed the process – perhaps the patient would have re-gained consciousness quicker and more completely without it! My hypothesis (homeopathy cased harm) is exactly as strong and silly as the one (homeopathy cased benefit) of GV. Anecdotes will never be able to answer the question as to who is correct.

One has to be a homeopath (and a daft one at that) to believe that this sort of evidence will lead to the acceptance of homeopathy by the scientific community. No journal will take GV seriously. No editor can be that stupid!

Oooops! Hold on, I might be wrong here.

Dr Peter Fisher, editor of the journal ‘Homeopathy’ just published an editorial ( Fisher P, Homeopathy and intellectual honesty, Homeopathy (2017), see also my previous post) stating that, in future, ‘we will increase publication of well-documented case-reports’.

Did I just claim that no editor can be that stupid?




  • I should declare a conflict of interest: when he got his ‘Right Livelihood Award’, GV sent me (and other prominent homeopathy-researchers) some of the prize money (I think it was around £ 1000) to support my research in homeopathy. I used it for exactly that purpose.


Dr Peter Fisher (I have mentioned him several times before, see for instance here, here and here) claimed in his recent editorial (Fisher P, Homeopathy and intellectual honesty, Homeopathy (2017) – not yet available on Medline) that 43 systematic reviews of homeopathy have so far been published, and stated that “of these 21 were clearly or tentatively positive and 9 inconclusive”. In my book, this would mean that the majority of systematic reviews fail to be clearly positive. But Fisher seems to view this mini-statistic as a proof of homeopathy’s efficacy.

As evidence for his statement, Fisher cites this article from his own journal (‘Homeopathy’). However, the paper actually says this: “A total of 36 condition-specific systematic reviews have been identified in the peer-reviewed literature: 16 of them reported positive, or tentatively positive, conclusions about homeopathy’s clinical effectiveness; the other 20 were negative or non-conclusive.”


Confused by this contradiction, I try to dig deeper. Medline provides currently 66 hits when searching systematic reviews of homeopathy. But this figure includes papers that are not really systematic reviews and excludes some relevant articles that are not Medline-listed.

The NHMRC report which Fisher also cites (see below) considered 57 systematic reviews of homeopathy. In his editorial, Fisher stated that the NHMRC report “seems to have missed some systematic reviews of homeopathy”. This can only mean that Fisher knows of more than 57 reviews. Why then does he claim that there are just 43?


Yes, but Fisher’s editorial seems odd in several other ways as well.

  • He accuses the NHMRC-authors of ‘malpractice’.
  • He finds ‘shocking evidence of bias’.
  • He alleges that the EASAC-report ‘cherry-picks evidence’.
  • He accuses the EASAC-authors of ‘abuse of authority’.

Definitely odd!

Why does Dr Peter Fisher go this far, why is he so very aggressive?

I know Peter quite well. He is usually a fairly calm and collected sort of person who is not prone to irrational outbursts. This behaviour is therefore out of character.

So, why?

The only explanation that I have for his strange behaviour is that he feels cornered, has run out of rational arguments, and senses that homeopathy is now on its last leg.

What do you think?

Recent Comments

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

Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.