homeopathy
‘Agoro’ is a German (all texts are my translations from German) website that claims this:
“We specialize in alternative methods of treatment from the field of natural medicine. Our mission is to ensure that the ancient wisdom of our grandparents and ancestors is not forgotten.”
Unsurprisingly, this subject interests me. In particular, I was fascinated by an article entitled
Nux vomica Globuli in der Homöopathie
Nux Vomica in homeopathy
Nux vomica is (after arnica) amongst the most popular remedies in homeopathy. Therefore, we should all be keen to learn all about it.
Here is the translation of this article:
Nux vomica is one of the homeopathic remedies that you can get in all pharmacies. It can help you with various diseases, such as stomach pain. You can also use this homeopathic remedy for nausea and heartburn. You can buy it in the city pharmacies, but you can also make it easy for yourself and use the online pharmacy for globules. Here you will be well advised on the dosage of homeopathic remedies. Similarly, you can also contact the homeopath or naturopath for good advice.
Nux vomica is a remedy derived from the medicinal plant nux vomica. You can use the homeopathic remedy in the potencies D6 and D12. In some cases, it can be recommended to you also in C6, C12, or C30.
You can use the homeopathic remedy in many ways, including for constipation or exhaustion. You will find out which dosage you can take if you consult a professional. In this way, you will be recommended the appropriate potency to experience help from it.
It is crucial that you always seek advice before taking the remedy. As already mentioned, you can use several contact points for this. Whether it is the pharmacy, the naturopath, or the homeopath. In addition, there are many family doctors who now also use homeopathy and could recommend you the appropriate dosage. The consultation is important in any case because the homeopathy must be adapted to your complaints. Otherwise, the remedy will not work or will not work properly.
If you want to use the remedy for yourself, you always need patience. Homeopathic remedies need a little time to work, that is their only disadvantage. How long this always depends on the person and the remedy. Sometimes it takes only a few hours, sometimes a few days or weeks. You can also get advice on this.
Indications for nux vomica
Stomach and intestinal problems
You can use the remedy for you in case of abdominal pain, mild biliousness, and various stomach and intestinal problems. The remedy can also be of great help for nausea, flatulence, nausea, and constipation.
Headaches and migraines
The remedy Nux vomica can help you if you suffer from headaches that are located just above the eye. It can also help you with migraines. Even with a hangover, the remedy could help.
Moods
If you suffer from autumn depression or are often easily frustrated, you can use the remedy.
_______________________
Yes, I do get easily frustrated with texts like this!
But I doubt that nux vomica can help me with this or any other problem.
Some might say that doubting is not good enough, evidence is needed!
I agree but was unable to find sound evidence to show that homeopathic nux vomica was better than a placebo for any condition (in case any of our regular defenders of homeopathy know more, please let me know). On the contrary, I only found studies that suggested its ineffectiveness. Here is an example:
In a monocenter prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was investigated on children with adenoid vegetations justifying an operation. Patients were treated with either homeopathic remedies such as Nux vomica D200, Okoubaka D3, Tuberculinum D200, Barium jodatum D4 and Barium jodatum D6 or with placebo. The duration of the study for each patient was 3 months. Examination of the ears using a microscope, rhinoscopy, stomatoscopy and pharyngoscopy, as well as tympanometry and audiometry were performed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Out of a total of 97 children studied between the ages of 4 to 10 years 82 could be analyzed. At the end of the study no operation was required in 70.7% of the placebo-treated children and in 78.1% of the children treated with homeopathic preparations. These results show no statistical significance.
So, where does that leave us in relation to the “ancient wisdom of our grandparents and ancestors“? I fear, that this story shows yet again that, when it comes to homeopathy, the scrutiny of ancient wisdom quickly turns it into old bullshit.
I had all but forgotten about these trials until a comment by ‘Mojo’ (thanks Mojo!) reminded me of this article in the JRSM by M.E. Dean. It reviewed these early trials of homeopathy back in 2006. Here are the crucial excerpts:
The homeopath in both trials was a Dr Herrmann, who received a 1-year contract in February 1829 to test homeopathy with the Russian military.3 The first study took place at the Military Hospital in the market town of Tulzyn, in the province of Podolya, Ukraine.4 At the end of 3 months, 164 patients had been admitted, 123 pronounced cured, 18 were convalescing, 18 still sick, and six had died. The homeopathic ward received many gravely ill patients, and the small number of deaths was shown at autopsy to be due to advanced gross pathologies. The results were interesting enough for the Russian government to order Herrmann to the Regional Military Hospital at St Petersburg to take part in a larger trial, supervised by a Dr Gigler. Patients were admitted to an experimental homeopathic ward, for treatment by Herrmann, and comparisons were made with the success rate in the allopathic wards, as happened in Tulzyn. The novelty was Gigler’s inclusion of a ‘no treatment’ ward where patients were not subject to conventional drugging and bleeding, or homeopathic dosing. The untreated patients benefited from baths, tisanes, good nutrition and rest, but also:
‘During this period, the patients were additionally subjects of an innocent deception. In order to deflect the suspicion that they were not being given any medicine, they were prescribed pills made of white breadcrumbs or cocoa, lactose powder or salep infusions, as happened in the homeopathic ward.’3 (page 415)
The ‘no treatment’ patients, in fact, did better than those in both the allopathic and homeopathic wards. The trial had important implications not just for homeopathy but also for the excessive allopathic drugging and bleeding that was prevalent. As a result of the report, homeopathy was banned in Russia for some years, although allopathy was not.
… A well-known opponent of homeopathy, Carl von Seidlitz, witnessed the St Petersburg trial and wrote a hostile report.5 He then conducted a homeopathic drug test in February 1834 at the Naval Hospital in the same city in which healthy nursing staff received homeopathically-prepared vegetable charcoal or placebo in a single-blind cross-over design.6 Within a few months, Armand Trousseau and colleagues were giving placebo pills to their Parisian patients; perhaps in the belief that they were testing homeopathy, and fully aware they were testing a placebo response.7,8 A placebo-controlled homeopathic proving took place in Nuremberg in 1835 and even included a primitive form of random assignment—identical vials of active and placebo treatment were shuffled before distribution.9 Around the same time in England, Sir John Forbes treated a diarrhoea outbreak after dividing his patients into two groups: half received allopathic ‘treatment as usual’ and half got bread pills. He saw no difference in outcome, and when he reported the experiment in 1846 he added that the placebos could just as easily have been homeopathic tablets.10 In 1861, a French doctor gave placebo pills to patients with neurotic symptoms, and his attitude is representative: he called the placebo ‘orthodox homeopathy’, because, as he said, ‘Bread pills or globules of Aconitum 30c or 40c amount to the same thing’.11
References:
A recent article in ‘The Lancet Regional Health‘ emphasized the “need for reimagining India’s health system and the importance of an inclusive approach for Universal Health Coverage” by employing traditional medicine, including homeopathy. This prompted a response by Siddhesh Zadey that I consider worthy of reproducing here in abbreviated form:
… Since the first trial conducted in 1835 that questioned homeopathy’s efficacy, multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other studies compiled in several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that there is no reliable and clinically significant effect of non-individualized or individualized homeopathic treatments across disease conditions ranging from irritable bowel syndrome in adults to acute respiratory tract infections in children when compared to placebo or other treatments. Even reviews that support homeopathy’s efficacy consistently caution about low quality of evidence and raise questions on its clinical use. The most recent analysis of reporting bias in homeopathic trials depicted problematic trial conduction practices that further obscure reliability and validity of evidence. Homeopathic treatments have also been linked to aggravations and non-fatal and fatal adverse events.
The Lancet has previously published on another kind of harm that uptake of homeopathy encourages in India: delay to evidence-based clinical care that can lead to fatality. Authors have pointed out that evidence for some of the alternative systems of medicine may not come from RCTs. I agree that more appropriate study designs and analytical techniques are needed for carefully studying individualized treatment paradigms. However, the need for agreement on some consistent form of evidence synthesis and empirical testing across diverse disciplines cannot be discounted. Several other disciplines including psychology, economics, community health, implementation science, and public policy have adopted RCTs and related study designs and have passed the empirical tests of efficacy. Moreover, the ideas around mechanism of action in case of homeopathy still remain controversial and lack evidence after over a century. On the contrary, biochemical, molecular, and physiological mechanistic evidence supporting allopathic treatments has grown abundantly in the same period.
Owing to lack of evidence on its efficacy and safety, the World Health Organization had previously warned against the use of homeopathic treatments for severe diseases. Additionally, multiple countries, including Germany where the practice originated, have initiated mechanisms that discourage uptake of homeopathy while others are considering banning it. Homeopathy doesn’t work, could be harmful, and is not a part of Indian traditional medicine. While we should welcome pluralistic approaches towards UHC, we need to drop homeopathy.
(for references, see original text)
___________________
Yes, in the name of progress and in the interest of patients, “we need to drop homeopathy” (not just in India but everywhere). I quite agree!
I have featured the ‘Münster Circle‘ before. The reason why I do it again today is that we have just published a new Memorandum entitled HOMEOPATHY IN THE PHARMACY. Here is its summary which I translated into English:
Due to questionable regulations in German pharmaceutical law, homeopathic medicines can be given the status of a medicinal product without having to provide valid proof of efficacy. As medicinal products, these preparations may then only be dispensed to customers in pharmacies, which, however, creates an obligation to also supply them on request or prescription. Many pharmacies go far beyond this and advertise homeopathic medicines as a useful therapy option by advertising them prominently in the window. In addition, customers are recommended to use them, corresponding lecture events are supported, and much more. Often, homeopathic preparations are even produced according to pharmacies’ own formulations and marketed under their own name.
For pharmacists and pharmaceutical technical assistants (PTAs) to perform their important task in the proper supply of medicines to the population, they must have successfully completed a scientific study of pharmacy or state-regulated training. This is to ensure that customers are informed and properly advised about their medicines according to the current state of knowledge.
After successfully completing their training or studies, PTAs and pharmacists are undoubtedly able to recognize that homeopathic medicines cannot be effective beyond placebo. They do not have any significant content of active ingredients – if, for example, the high potencies that are considered to be particularly effective still have any active ingredients at all. Consequently, pharmacists and PTAs act against their better knowledge to the detriment of their customers if they create the impression through their actions that homeopathic medicines represent a sensible therapeutic option and customers are thereby encouraged to buy and use them.
Although homeopathics have no potential for direct harm in the absence of relevant amounts of pharmacologically active substances in the preparations, their distribution should nevertheless be viewed critically. The use of homeopathy can mean losing valuable time and delaying the start of effective therapy. It is often accompanied by criticism, even rejection of scientifically oriented medicine and public health, for example when homeopathy is presented as the antithesis to a threatening “pharmaceutical mafia”.
The Münster Circle appeals to pharmacists and PTAs to stop advertising homeopathic medicines as an effective therapeutic option, to stop producing and marketing them themselves, and to advise their customers that homeopathic preparations are not more effective than placebo. The professional organizations of pharmacists and other providers of further training are called upon to no longer offer courses on homeopathy – except for convincingly refuting the often abstruse claims of the supporters.
_______________________
I have pointed out for at least 20 years now that pharmacists have an ethical duty toward their clients. And this duty does not involve misleading them and selling them useless homeopathic remedies. On the contrary, it involves advising them on the basis of the best existing evidence.
When I started writing and talking about this, pharmacists seemed quite interested (or perhaps just amused?). They invited me to give lectures, I published an entire series of articles in the PJ, etc. Of late, they seem to be fed up with hearing this message and the invitations have well and truly stopped.
They may be frustrated with my message – but not as frustrated as I am with their inertia. In my view, it is nothing short of a scandal that homeopathic remedies and similarly bogus treatments still feature in pharmacies across the globe.
Guest post by Hans-Werner Bertelsen
As a self-confessed Asterix fan, I made a proposal to the Bremen Medical Association in 2019 that it should no longer orient itself towards the mainstream in the area of further training, but rather towards Klein-Bonum. The board found my proposal very good and unanimously deleted “homeopathy” from the postgraduate training regulations at the next board meeting. The media echo was tremendous. Words of “dam bursting” and “revolution” did the rounds. The “domino effect” was also often quoted in this context, because in the following years, many other German state medical associations followed the Bremen example and removed “homeopathy” from their further training regulations: Saxony-Anhalt, North Rhine, Schleswig-Holstein, Baden-Württemberg, Hamburg, Hesse, Brandenburg, Berlin, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, Saarland, and Bavaria.
Following the principle of logical plausibility, according to which it makes no sense to support dubious therapies that are not in one’s own training portfolio, but are still reimbursed by many health insurance funds, by convenient billing modalities, the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Bremen (KVHB) drew a line under the matter and terminated corresponding contracts on my advice. With the termination of the criticized selective contracts, the small federal state of Bremen thus set new standards in 2021. Since the termination, doctors can no longer conveniently provide “homeopathic services” online but have to bill their patients for their services.
But that was not all: the drumbeat of terminated billing contracts had not yet died down in the ears of the “homeopaths”, when only 3 months later, at the meeting of the Federal Medical Association, the next one followed: After a delegate from Bremen (do you want to know if this was a coincidence?) had submitted a motion for the deletion of “homeopathy” from the Model Continuing Medical Education Ordinance (MWBO), this was carried out after a democratic vote at the medical congress in Bremen. The Federal Medical Association thus officially declares this type of sham therapy to be no longer up-to-date, dispensable, and unworthy of further training.
In view of the vote democratically given by the Board, it seems bizarre that the Bavarian Medical Association, despite its own decision to remove “homeopathy” from the WBO, now invokes prolongations because of “transitional periods” in order to be able to continue offering courses in “homeopathy”. Contracts in this regard are to be considered secondary and no longer current. Therefore, the justification given by the ÄND proves to be flimsy and not stringent. The protection of patients from dangerous sham therapies in the case of the omission of indication-appropriate therapies saves lives and thus clearly represents the higher legal interest. Calls for “transitional periods” are redundant and negligently endanger the health of many people. On top of that, an unnecessary extension is a disrespect to the decision made by its own members in the democratic process.
But I remain optimistic that logical plausibility – free of backlogs (!) – will prevail in Bavaria as well. The vote has proven that there is a majority for this and that this majority will not be dominated by money or self-deception.
References
https://www.dr-bertelsen.de/documents/Screenshot_2023-02-10_at_11-36-05_Warum_eine_Aerztekammer_noch_immer_Homoeopathie-Kurse_anbietet-AEND.png
https://publikum.net/die-konigl-bayerische-zuckerkugel/
The use of and interest in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for animals is often said to be increasing. But only a few reliable data exist on this subject. This survey is based on online research of 1083 German veterinary homepages for contents of veterinary SCAM performed in September and October 2017. “Veterinarian” and “Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons” were used as search items. Homepages of small animal medicine were included. They were surveyed for modes of SCAM treatments and corresponding qualifications of the offering veterinarian.
In total, 60.7 % (n = 657) of homepages showed contents of veterinary SCAM. The highest percentage was found in the Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons of Saarland (91.7 %, n = 11 out of 12). Homeopathy was cited most frequently (58 %, n = 381). Out of all homepages with relevant content, 31.4 % (n = 206) gave information about user qualifications, with continuous education programs named most frequently (52.9 %, n = 109).
The authors concluded that the given data illustrate the high number of German veterinary homepages with contents of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine, corresponding to actual data of a high usage in veterinary and human medicine. Therefore further scientific research in this field seems reasonable. Modes of treatment and qualifications are highly diverse and despite of controversial public discussions, homeopathy was the most frequently cited treatment modality on German veterinary homepages.
The authors also added this: We like to thank the Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation for the postgraduate scholarship.
The little addendum makes it less puzzling, I think, why the paper is almost totally devoid of any critical input. Animals can obviously not give informed consent to medical treatments. Like humans, they need the most effective therapy when ill. It is hard to deny that homeopathy, for instance, does not belong in that category. Thus, veterinary SCAM is confronted with a considerable ethical problem. It is beyond me how an article about SCAM use in animals can not even mention this or other critical issues.
But at least, you might argue, the paper informs us which SCAMs are currently the most popular. Wrong! SCAM use is highly prone to changes in fashion. This paper tells us merely which SCAMs were popular several years ago! The time lag between doing the research and publishing it is something I find all too often in SCAM.
The two authors have recently published another paper. Have a look at this article:
The international use of and interest in veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine are increasing. There are diverse modes of treatment, and owners seem to be well informed. However, there is a lack of data that describes the state of naturopathic or complementary veterinary medicine in Germany. This study aims to address the issue by mapping the currently used treatment modalities, indications, existing qualifications, and information pathways. In order to map the ongoing controversy, this study records the advantages and disadvantages of these medicines as experienced by veterinarians. Demographic influences are investigated to describe distributional impacts on using veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine.
Methods: A standardised questionnaire was used for the cross-sectional survey. It was distributed throughout Germany in a written and digital format from September 2016 to January 2018. Because of the open nature of data collection, the return rate of questionnaires could not be calculated. To establish a feasible timeframe, active data collection stopped when the previously calculated limit of 1061 questionnaires was reached. With the included incoming questionnaires of that day a total of 1087 questionnaires were collected. Completely blank questionnaires and those where participants did not meet the inclusion criteria (were not included, leaving 870 out of 1087 questionnaires to be evaluated. A literature review and the first test run of the questionnaire identified the following treatment modalities: homoeopathy, phytotherapy, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), biophysical treatments, manual treatments, Bach Flower Remedies, neural therapy, homotoxicology, organotherapy, and hirudotherapy which were included in the questionnaire. Categorical items were processed using descriptive statistics in absolute and relative numbers based on the population of completed answers provided for each item. Multiple choices were possible. Metric data were not normally distributed (Shapiro Wilk Test); hence the median, minimum, and maximum were used for description. The impact of demographic data on the implementation of veterinary naturopathy and complementary techniques was calculated using the Mann-Whitney-U-Test for metric data and the exact Fisher-Test for categorical data.
Results: Overall 85.4% (n = 679 of total 795 non-blank data sets) of all the questionnaire participants used naturopathy and complementary medicine. The treatments most commonly used were complex homoeopathy (70.4%, n = 478), phytotherapy (60.2%, n = 409), classic homoeopathy (44.3%, n = 301) and biophysical treatments (40.1%, n = 272). The most common indications were orthopedic (n = 1798), geriatric (n = 1428) and metabolic diseases (n = 1124). Over the last five years, owner demand for naturopathy and complementary treatments was rated as growing by 57.9% of respondents (n = 457 of total 789). Veterinarians most commonly used scientific journals and publications as sources for information about naturopathic and complementary contents (60.8%, n = 479 of total 788). These were followed by advanced training acknowledged by the ATF (Academy for Veterinary Continuing Education, an organisation that certifies independent veterinary continuing education in Germany) (48.6%, n = 383). The current information about naturopathy and complementary medicine was rated as adequate or nearly adequate by a plurality (39.5%, n = 308) of the respondents of this question. Further, 27.7% (n = 216) of participants chose the option that they were not confident to answer this question and 91 answers were left blank. The most commonly named advantages in using veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine were the expansion of treatment modalities (73.5%, n = 566 of total 770), customer satisfaction (70.8%, n = 545) and lower side effects (63.2%, n = 487). The ambiguity of studies, as well as the unclear evidence of mode of action and effectiveness (62.1%, n = 483) and high expectations of owners (50.5%, n = 393) were the disadvantages mentioned most frequently. Classic homoeopathy, in particular, has been named in this context (78.4%, n = 333 of total 425). Age, gender, and type of employment showed a statistically significant impact on the use of naturopathy and complementary medicine by veterinarians (p < 0.001). The university of final graduation showed a weaker but still statistically significant impact (p = 0.027). Users of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine tended to be older, female, self-employed and a higher percentage of them completed their studies at the University of Berlin. The working environment (rural or urban space) showed no statistical impact on the veterinary naturopathy or complementary medicine profession.
Conclusion: This is the first study to provide German data on the actual use of naturopathy and complementary medicine in small animal science. Despite a potential bias due to voluntary participation, it shows a large number of applications for various indications. Homoeopathy was mentioned most frequently as the treatment option with the most potential disadvantages. However, it is also the most frequently used treatment option in this study. The presented study, despite its restrictions, supports the need for a discussion about evidence, official regulations, and the need for acknowledged qualifications because of the widespread application of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine. More data regarding the effectiveness and the mode of action is needed to enable veterinarians to provide evidence-based advice to pet owners.
This paper seems at first sight a bit more informative. But it suffers very similar problems: the data were outdated before they were even published, and this article too lacks critical input.
So, what purpose might these two articles serve?
None!
Oh, sorry – they probably did manage to get the doctor’s title for one or two poor vet students who had been hoodwinked with the help of the the Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation into conducting some rather useless pieces of research.
Turnera diffusa, known as damiana is a shrub native to southern Texas in the United States, Central America, Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean that produces small, aromatic flowers. Damiana is an ingredient in a traditional Mexican liqueur, which is sometimes used in lieu of triple sec in margaritas. Damiana was included in several 19th-century patent medicines, such as Pemberton’s French Wine Coca. The leaves were omitted from that product’s non-alcoholic counterpart, Coca-Cola.
In folklore, the plant was believed to be an aphrodisiac. I looked for evidence from clinical trials but was unable to find any. However, that does not seem to bother PharmaSGP GmbH which produces a drug called Neradin.
The German advertisement of Neradin tells us that:
Bei sexueller Schwäche wie Erektionsstörungen können auch traditionelle Mittel helfen – ohne die Nebenwirkungen mancher chemischer Potenzmittel. Das pflanzliche Arzneimittel Neradin® nutzt dazu erfolgreich Wirkstoffe der mexikanischen Heilpflanze Damiana (Turnera Diffusa).
Die Vorteile von Neradin® auf einen Blick: Fördert die Potenz des Mannes bei sexueller Schwäche
I translated this into English:
Traditional remedies can also help with sexual weakness such as erectile dysfunction – without the side effects of some chemical sexual enhancers. The herbal medicine Neradin® successfully uses active ingredients from the Mexican medicinal plant Damiana (Turnera Diffusa).
The advantages of Neradin® at a glance: Promotes male potency in case of sexual weakness
The patient information leaflet states that “Niradin is a homeopathic drug” and “one tablet Niradin contains 100mg Turnera Diffusa Trit. D4”.
English language sites concur:
Neradin is a homeopathic medicine. Homeopathy is understood as a regulatory therapy for acute and chronic diseases. The areas of application are derived from the homeopathic drug pictures. The following indications are authorised for this medicinal product: Discomfort caused by sexual weakness
So, what we seem to have here is the following:
- A pharma firm that advertises a homeopathic product as a herbal drug.
- A homeopathic remedy that is based on a plant for which there is not a jot of evidence.
- If there were evidence that the plant helps against erectile dysfunction, its homeopathic dilution would, according to the homeopathic ‘like cures like’ axiom, bring about erectile dysfunction.
- A dilution (1:10000) that is too low to have any effect, even if it were made of Viagra.
Am I the only one to think that something is not quite right here?
But don’t let it spoil your HAPPY VALENTINE!
Remember the Bavarian Homeopathy Study? I reported about it only a few days ago. Now the ‘German Homeopathic Doctors Association’ has published an interview with someone who allegedly knows more about it. Here is my translation:
Dr. Springer, what does it actually mean politically that this study came about at all?
First of all, it means that the work of several years was worthwhile and that we were able to convince those responsible with a carefully elaborated study design. It also shows how enormously important it is to have solid political contacts with parties, MPs, parliamentary groups, and spokespersons in health committees. In addition to persuasion, personal credibility and professional competence are indispensable for the growth of such contacts. This is also shown by the fact that LIMed (List of Integrative Medicine) in Bavaria (as in some other federal states) has succeeded in sending committed colleagues to the representations of the State Medical Association and the Medical District and County Association.
What is special about this study?
As far as I know, it is the first study worldwide to be carried out with hand-shaken high potencies (C 200 and C 1000). If the results were positive, the mechanism of action of homeopathy would not be clarified, but it would be proven that highly potentised medicinal substances have a healing effect that can be objectified scientifically.
Who is the sponsor of this study?
The Bavarian Parliament voted with an absolute majority to scientifically investigate the role of complementary medicine in the fight against increasing antibiotic resistance. Several study designs were submitted on this question, and our study approach won the bid in the end. The Bavarian State Ministry of Health and Care is financing the study and has won the Technical University of Munich as a partner – after all, it is one of Germany’s universities of excellence. This removes all doubts about the correct scientific conduct of the study.
What is to be investigated in the study?
It relates to a diagnosis with great relevance to healthcare: Women often suffer from recurrent urinary tract infections, which are often treated with antibiotics. This is always associated with the risk of causative bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. As homeopathically qualified doctors, we know from decades of experience that we can reduce and even end the frequency of recurrent urinary tract infections and their occurrence with our homeopathic remedies. We want to put this experience to the test scientifically with this study.
How do you see the chances for a positive study result?
As doctors, we know what we do and what we can do. We will do everything in our power to show that we can do it! I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have made this study possible and who are providing us with professional and scientific support!-
The interview was conducted by Ulf Riker, MD.
___________________________
The interview raises several questions:
- Dr. Springer confirms that the existence of the study and its financial support is mostly due to political influence. Is this how good science should be generated?
- Is it true that the study is the first to investigate potency homeopathy? Considering that the bestselling homeopathic, Oscillococcinum, is sold in the C200 potency, this seems to be a very questionable statement.
- If the results were to come out positive, would we really re-write the textbooks of physics and chemistry which state that the absence of an active molecule cannot have an effect?
- Does the involvement of the Technical University truly remove all doubts about the correct scientific conduct of the study?
- If the homeopathically qualified doctors conducting the study already claim to know from decades of experience that they can reduce and even end the frequency of recurrent urinary tract infections with homeopathic remedies, are they not going to be too biased in conducting such a study?
- If the trialists are determined to do everything in their power to show that homeopathy works, will the study generate a reliable result?
- My last question is, how reliable is Dr. Springer? I found another interview of him dated 2021. In it he stated about the homeopathic treatment of COVID patients: ” [There is a} group of Covid-19 patients … [to] whose successful treatment we as homeopathic physicians can certainly contribute. The symptomatology of these patients is considerable, sometimes severe, but not life-threatening. They suffer from headaches and pain in the limbs, dizziness, fever, have the often-quoted “dry cough”, sweat, and usually feel very weak. But they have not yet developed clinical symptoms of pneumonia. These patients – and they are by no means few – can be helped by medical homeopathy, I am firmly convinced, curatively. Provided, of course, that a very precise, individual homeopathic anamnesis is carried out, the patient is closely followed, the course of the disease is closely observed and the remedy administered is adjusted if necessary. By preventing an acute condition and hospitalization in these patients homeopathy could make a not inconsiderable contribution to overcoming these greatest health and social challenges in one hundred years.” That, I think might answer my question.
As I pointed out before, the study design looks rigorous. After reading this interview, I have my doubts that its execution will be rigorous as well.
I recently came across a truly baffling article. As it is in German, I translated it for you:
Supply shortages have kept pharmacies on tenterhooks for months, with more than 400 common medicines missing. The German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ) suggests switching to alternative medicine as a solution: “We have homeopathic medicines that have been tried and tested in practice for more than 200 years and can replace many medicines that are currently not available,” says the president of the DZVhÄ , Dr Michaela Geiger.
The DZVhÄ is convinced that homeopathic medical practices can replace fever-reducing medicines, but in many cases also antibiotics and much more. However, Geiger qualifies: “Due to our medical training, we also know that cancer drugs such as the often cited Tamoxifen cannot be replaced by homeopathy”.
The homeopathic doctors respond directly to the sharpest argument of their critics: “But let’s assume that homeopathy only works via the placebo effect, as is being rumored, even then it would be an option, especially if other options are lacking,” says DZVhÄ vice-president Dr. Ulf Riker. Since homeopathically trained doctors can judge the general course of a disease, they can also distinguish a placebo effect from a medicinal effect.
…
If fever medication for children is lacking, parents should not be deprived of another “therapy option”, Riker said. “If you do not get your conventional fever medication in the coming weeks, visit a specialist pharmacy for naturopathy and homeopathy. If you are due for a medical consultation, experienced homeopathic doctors can prescribe a suitable homeopathic medicine for you,” he says.
Why do I find this so intriguing?
Essentially, what we have learned from the article is the following:
- “Tried and tested in practice for more than 200 years” is ‘homeopathy speak’ for “effective”, even if the evidence tells us otherwise.
- Homeopathic remedies can replace many evidence-based conventional medications such as fever-reducing medicines, antibiotics, and much more, even if the evidence tells us otherwise.
- Homeopaths know that cancer drugs cannot be replaced by homeopathy – except for those homeopaths who seem to have forgotten this simple lesson.
- Homeopathic placebos are a realistic option when there is a supply problem with effective drugs, even if the evidence tells us otherwise.
- Homeopathically trained doctors can distinguish a placebo effect from a medicinal effect, even if there is no evidence that any clinician can reliably do this.
- Homeopathic doctors prescribe suitable homeopathic medicine. Suitable for whom? As it is ineffective, it is unsuitable for the patient. Therefore, Riker is probably talking about the homeopath.
So, what have we really learned from this article? I don’t know about you, but I got the impression that the president and the vice president of the DZVhÄ do not seem to mind putting patients in danger, as long as they can promote homeopathy.
Homeopathic remedies are highly diluted formulations without proven clinical benefits, traditionally believed not to cause adverse events. Nonetheless, published literature reveals severe local and non-liver-related systemic side effects. This paper presents the first series on homeopathy-related severe drug-induced liver injury (DILI) from a single center.
A retrospective review of records from January 2019 to February 2022 identified 9 patients with liver injury attributed to homeopathic formulations. Competing causes were comprehensively excluded. Chemical analysis was performed on retrieved formulations using triple quadrupole gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy.
Males predominated with a median age of 54 years. The most typical clinical presentation was acute hepatitis, followed by acute on chronic liver failure. All patients developed jaundice, and ascites were notable in one-third of the patients. Five patients had underlying chronic liver disease. COVID-19 prevention was the most common indication for homeopathic use. Probable DILI was seen in 77.8%, and hepatocellular injury predominated (66.7%). Four (44.4%) patients died (3 with chronic liver disease) at a median follow-up of 194 days. Liver histopathology showed necrosis, portal and lobular neutrophilic inflammation, and eosinophilic infiltration with cholestasis. A total of 29 remedies were consumed between 9 patients, and 15 formulations were analyzed. Toxicology revealed industrial solvents, corticosteroids, antibiotics, sedatives, synthetic opioids, heavy metals, and toxic phyto-compounds, even in ‘supposed’ ultra-dilute formulations.
The authors concluded that homeopathic remedies potentially result in severe liver injury, leading to death in those with underlying liver disease. The use of mother tinctures, insufficient dilution, poor manufacturing practices, adulteration and contamination, and the presence of direct hepatotoxic herbals were the reasons for toxicity. Physicians, the public, and patients must realize that Homeopathic drugs are not ‘gentle placebos.’
Over a decade ago, we published a systematic review entitled “Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series”:
Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding the adverse effects (AEs) of homeopathy.
Method: Five electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant case reports and case series.
Results: In total, 38 primary reports met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 30 pertained to direct AEs of homeopathic remedies; and eight were related to AEs caused by the substitution of conventional medicine with homeopathy. The total number of patients who experienced AEs of homeopathy amounted to 1159. Overall, AEs ranged from mild-to-severe and included four fatalities. The most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications. Rhus toxidendron was the most frequently implicated homeopathic remedy.
Conclusion: Homeopathy has the potential to harm patients and consumers in both direct and indirect ways. Clinicians should be aware of its risks and advise their patients accordingly.
It caused an outcry from fans of homeopathy who claimed that one cannot insist that homeopathic remedies are ineffective because they contain no active ingredient, while also arguing that they cause severe adverse effects. In a way, they were correct: homeopathic remedies are useless even at causing adverse effects. But this applies only to remedies that are manufactured correctly and that are highly dilute. The trouble is that quality control in homeopathy often seems to be less than adequate. And this is how adverse effects can happen!
The new article from India is an important addition to the literature providing more valuable information about the risks of homeopathy. Its authors were able to do chemical analyses of some of the remedies and could thus show what the reasons for the liver injuries were. The article provides an essential caution for those who delude themselves by assuming that homeopathy is harmless. In fact, the remedies can cause severe problems. But, as we have discussed regularly on this blog, the far greater risk in homeopathy is not the remedy but the homeopath and his/her all too often incompetent advice to patients.
