Yes, homeopaths are incredibly fond of the notion that homeopathy has been proven to work in numerous population studies of outbreaks of infectious diseases. The argument is bound to come up in any discussion with a ‘well-informed’ homeopathy fan. Therefore, it might be worth addressing it once and for all.

This website offers a fairly good summary of what homeopaths consider to be convincing evidence. It also provides links to the original articles which is valuable for all who want to study them in full detail. I will therefore present the crucial passage here unchanged.


By the end of year 2014, there have been 19 papers published on Epidemiological studies on 7 epidemic diseases (scarlet fever, typhus fever, Cholera, Dengue, meningococcal, influenza and Leptospirosis) in 11 peer-reviewed (beyond year 1893) journals in evidence of Homeopathy including 2 Randomised Controlled Trials.

1. Samuel Hahnemann, “The Cure and prevention of scarlet fever”, Zeitschrift für Praktischen Medizin (Journal of Practical Medicine), 1801, Republished in Lesser Writings. B.Jain Publishing, New Delhi

Preventive use of homeopathy was first applied in 1799 during an epidemic of scarlet fever in Königslütter, Germany, when Dr. Hahnemann prescribed a single dose of Belladonna, as the remedy of the genus epidemicus to susceptible children in the town with more than 95% success rate. In this paper, he also specified how the Belladonna has to be potentised to 1/24,000,000 dilution. His recommended dose of Belladonna was 0.0416 nanograms to be repeated every 72 hrs. This is the first recorded nano dose of medicine used in treatment of any disease [6]. It was another 125 years before Gladys Henry and George Frederick developed a vaccine for scarlet fever in 1924.

2. Samuel Hahnemann, “Scarlet fever and Purpura miliaris, two different diseases”, Zeitschrift für Praktischen Medizin, vol. 24, part. 1, 1806

3. Samuel Hahnemann, “Observations on scarlet fever”, Allgemeine Reichanzeiger (General Reich Gazette), No. 160, Germany, 1808

4. Samuel Hahnemann, “Reply to a question about the prophylactic for scarlet fever”, Zeitschrift für Praktischen Medizin, vol. 27, part. 4, p. 152-156, 1808

5. Samuel Hahnemann, “Treatment of typhus & fever at present prevailing”, Allgemeine Reichanzeiger, No. 6, Jan. 1814.

6. Hufeland, Prophylactic powers of Belladonna against Scarlet Fever , The Lancet, 1829
The proper use of belladonna has, in most cases, prevented infection. Numerous observations have shown that, by the general use of belladonna, epidemics of scarlet fever have actually been arrested. In those few instances where the use of belladonna was insufficient to prevent infection, the disease has been invariably slight. The Prussian (German Empire) Government ordered the use of the prophylactic during all scarlet fever epidemics

7. Samuel Hahnemann, “Cure and prevention of Asiatic cholera”, Archiv für die homöopathische Heilkunst (Archives for the Homoeopathic Healing Art), Vol. 11, part 1, 1831.
Cuprum 30c once every week as preventive medicine

8. Samuel Hahnemann, “On the contagiousness of cholera”. British Homoeopathic Journal, Vol. 7, 1849

9. Samuel Hahnemann, “Appeal to Thinking Philanthropists Respecting the Mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera”, 20 pages, 1831. Republished in British Homoeopathic Journal, Oct 1849.

He said, “On board ships – in those confined spaces, filled with mouldy watery vapours, the cholera-miasm finds a favourable element for its multiplication, and grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures, so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists millions of those miasmatic animated beings, which, at first developed on the broad marshy banks or the tepid Ganges– on board these ships, I say, this concentrated aggravated miasm kills several of the crew …” [7].
It was another 59 years (1890) before Koch saw these organisms, and later on orthodox medicine gave them the name ‘germs’

10. Charles Woodhull Eaton, The Facts about Variolinum, Transactions of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, 1907
2806 patients were treated prophylactically with Variolinum 30 (a nosode) for prevention of smallpox in Iowa. Of the 547 patients definitely exposed, only 14 developed the disease. Efficacy rate of 97.5%

11. Taylor Smith A, Poliomyelitis and prophylaxis British Homoeopathic Journal, 1950
In 1950 during an epidemic of poliomyelitis, Dr Taylor Smith of Johannesburg, South Africa protected 82 people with homoeopathic Lathyrus sativus. Of the 82 so immunised, 12 came into direct contact with disease. None were infected.

12. Oscillococcinum 200c in the treatment of influenza during epidemic in France from 1984-1987, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (1989)
A DBRPCT, Oscillococcinum 200c taken twice daily for 5 days significantly increased the rate of cure within two days (n=487, 237 treated and 241 on placebo), absence of symptoms at 48 hours, relative risk estimate significantly favour homeopathy (p=0.048), no pain and no fever (p=0.048), recovery rate (headache, stiffness, articular pain, shivering reduction) at 48 hours better in homeopathy group (p=0.032)

13. Bernard Leary, Cholera 1854 Update, British Homoeopathic Journal, 1994
Sir William Wilde, the well-known allopathic doctor of Dublin, which in his work entitled “Austria and its Institutions”, wrote: “Upon comparing the report of the treatment of Cholera in the Homeopathic hospital testified to by two allopathic medical inspectors appointed by Government with that of the treatment of the same disease in the other hospitals of Vienna during the same period the epidemic of 1836, it appeared that while two-thirds of the cases treated by Dr. Fleischmann the physician of the Homeopathic hospital, recovered, two-thirds of those treated by the ordinary methods in the other hospitals died.”

14. Meningococcinum – its protective effect against meningococcal disease, Homeopathy Links, 2001 (2001)
A total of 65,826 people between the ages of 0–20 were immunised homeopathically to protect against meningococcal disease while 23,532 were not. Over a year period, 4 out of 65,826 protected homeopathically developed meningococcal infection. 20 out of 23,532 not protected developed meningococcal infection. Based on the infection rate in the unprotected group, 58 cases of infection could have been expected in the homeopathically protected group. Instead, there were only four cases of meningococcal infection. Statistical analysis showed that homeopathic immunisation offered 95% protection in the first six months and 91% protection over the year against meningococcal disease. [8]

15. Contribution of homeopathy to the control of an outbreak of dengue epidemic in Macaé, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2007-8 , International Journal of High Dilution Research, 2008
In a campaign ‘Homeopathy campaign against dengue’ by Brazilian Govt, “156,000 doses of homeopathic remedy were freely distributed in April and May 2007 to asymptomatic patients and 129 doses to symptomatic patients treated in outpatient clinics, according to the notion of genus epidemicus . The remedy used was a homeopathic complex against dengue containing Phosphorus 30c, Crotalus horridus 30c and Eupatorium perfoliatum 30c. The incidence of the disease in the first three months of 2008 fell 93% by comparison to the corresponding period in 2007, whereas in the rest of the State of Rio de Janeiro there was an increase of 128%.”

16. Marino R. Eupatorium perfoliatum 30c for the Dengue Epidemics in Brazil in 2007. International Journal of High Dilution Research, 2008
In May 2001, prophylactic use of Eupatorium perfoliatum 30c single dose was given during a dengue outbreak to 40% of residents in the most highly affected neighbourhood which resulted in significant decrease in dengue incidence by 81.5% (p<0.0001) when compared with those neighbourhoods that did not receive homeopathic prophylaxis.

17. Bracho et. al. Application of 200C potency of bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control in Cuba 2007-8 (2010)
Conducted by the Finlay Institute, a vaccines producer in Cuba gave 2.308562 million (70% of the target population above the age of 1 year) people in Cuba given two doses (1 dose=5 drops) of 200C potency of a nosode prepared from Leptospirosis bacteria, each (7-9 days apart), for protection against Leptospirosis (fever+jaundice+ inflammation in kidney+enlargement of spleen) with 84% decrease in disease incidence and only 10 reported cases. Dramatic decrease in morbidity within two weeks and zero morbidity of hospitalised patients, non-treated (8.8 millions) area saw an increase in number of cases from 309 cases in 2007 to 376 in 2008 representing a 21% increase. The cost of homeopathic immunization =1/15th of conventional vaccine.

18. Effect of individualized homoeopathic treatment in influenza like illness, Indian Journal of Research in Homeopathy (2013)
A multicenter, single blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to evaluate the effect of homoeopathic medicines in the treatment of Influenza like illness and to compare the efficacy of LM (50 millisimal) potency vis-à-vis centesimal (C) potency. In LM group (n=152), C group (n=147) or placebo (n=148) group. The study revealed the significant effect of individualized homoeopathic treatment in the patients suffering from ILI with no marked difference between LM and Centesimal groups. The medicines which were commonly prescribed were: Arsenic album, Bryonia alba, Rhus tox., Belladonna, Nux vomica, Sepia, Phosphorus, Gelsemium, Sulphur, Natrum mur. and Aconitum napellus. [9]

19. Reevaluation of the Effectiveness of Homoeoprophylaxis Against Leptospirosis in Cuba in 2007-8, Journal of Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (2014)
The results support the previous conclusions that homoeoprophylaxis can be used to effectively immunize people against targeted infectious diseases such as leptospirosis.

[1] Iman Navab, Lives saved by Homeopathy in Epidemics and Pandemics,

[2] Reshu Agarwal, Natural History of Disease and Homeopathy at different levels of Intervention,

[3] Homoeopathy- Science of Gentle Healing, Deptt. of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt, of India, 2013,

[4] Conversation with David Little,

[5] Nancy Malik, Principles of Homeopathy Explained, 2015,

[6] Nancy Malik, Recent Advances in Nanoparticle Research in Homeopathy, Homeopathy 4 Everyone, Vol.12, Issue 6, 18 June 2015,

[7] Samuel Hahnemann, “Appeal to Thinking Philanthropists Respecting the Mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera”, 20 pages, 1831, Translated by R E Dudgeon, M.D. in The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann, 1851, B Jain Publishers, reproduced edition, 2002, p. 758

[8] Fran Sheffield, Homeoprophylaxis: Human Records, Studies and Trials, 2014,

[9] Homoeopathy in Flu-like Illness- Factsheet, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Deptt. of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt, of India, 2015,


Whenever I read articles of this nature, I get a little embarrassed. It seems obvious to me that the authors of such reviews have done some ‘research’ and believe strongly in the correctness in what they write. It embarrasses me to see how such people, full of good will, can be so naïve, ignorant and wrong. They clearly fail to understand several crucial issues. To me. this seems like someone such as me lecturing others about car mechanics, quantum physics or kite flying. I have no idea about these subjects, and therefore it would be idiotic to lecture others about them. But homeopaths tend to be different! And this is when my embarrassment quickly turns into anger: articles like the above spread nonsense and misguide people about important issues. THEY ARE DANGEROUS! There is little room for embarrassment and plenty of room for criticism. So, let’s criticise the notions advanced above.

In my recent book, I briefly touched upon epidemics in relation to homeopathy:

Epidemics are outbreaks of disease occurring at the same time in one geographical area and affecting large number of people. In homeopathy, epidemics are important because, in its early days, they seemed to provide evidence for the notion that homeopathy is effective. The results of homeopathic treatment seemed often better than those obtained by conventional means. Today we know that this was not necessarily due to the effects of homeopathy per se, but might have been a false impression caused by bias and confounding.

This tells us the main reason why the much-treasured epidemiological evidence of homeopaths is far from compelling. The review above does not mention these caveats at all. But it is lousy also for a whole host of other reasons, for instance:

  • The text contains several errors (which I find too petty to correct here).
  • The list of studies is the result of cherry-picking the evidence.
  • It confuses what epidemiological studies are; RCTs are certainly not epidemiological studies, for instance.
  • It also omits some of the most important epidemiological studies suggesting homeopathy works.
  • It cites texts that are clearly not epidemiological studies.
  • Several studies are on prevention of illness rather than on treatment.
  • Some studies do not even employ homeopathy at all.

In the typical epidemiological case/control study, one large group of patients [A] is retrospectively compared to another group [B]. By large, I mean with a sample size of thousands of patients. In our case, group A has been treated homeopathically, while group B received the treatments available at the time. It is true that several of such reports seemed to suggest that homeopathy works. But this does by no means prove anything; the result might have been due to a range of circumstances, for instance:

  • group A might have been less ill than group B,
  • group A might have been richer and therefore better nourished,
  • group A might have benefitted from better hygiene in the homeopathic hospital,
  • group A might have received better care, e. g. hydration,
  • group B might have received treatments that made the situation not better but worse.

Because these are RETROSPECTIVE studies, there is no way to account for these and many other factors that might have influenced the outcome. This means that epidemiological studies of this nature can generate interesting results which, in turn, need testing in properly controlled studies where these confounding factors are adequately controlled for. Without such tests, they are next to worthless for recommendations regarding clinical practice.

As it happens, the above author also included two RCT in the review (these are NOT epidemiological studies, as I already mentioned). Let’s have a quick look at them.

The first RCT is flawed for a range of reasons and has been criticised many times before. Even its authors state that “the result cannot be explained given our present state of knowledge, but it calls for further rigorously designed clinical studies.” More importantly, the current Cochrane review of Oscillococcinum, the remedy used in this study, concluded: “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.”

The second RCT is equally flawed; for instance, its results could be due to the concomitant use of paracetamol, and it seems as though the study was not double blind. The findings of this RCT have so far not been confirmed by an independent replication.

What puzzles me most with these regularly voiced notions about the ‘epidemiological evidence’ for homeopathy is not the deplorable ineptitude of those who promote them, but it is this: do homeopaths really believe that conventional medics and scientists would ignore such evidence, if it were sound or even just encouraging? This assumes that all healthcare professionals (except homeopaths) are corrupt and cynical enough not to follow up leads with the potential to change medicine for ever. It assumes that we would supress knowledge that could save the lives of millions for the sole reason that we are against homeopathy or bribed by ‘BIG PHARMA’.

Surely, this shows more clearly than anything else how deluded homeopaths really are!!!


35 Responses to HOMEOPATHS LOVE IT: the epidemiological evidence suggesting that homeopathy works

  • Great post!

    …do homeopaths really believe that conventional medics and scientists would ignore such evidence, if it were sound or even just encouraging? This assumes that all healthcare professionals (except homeopaths) are corrupt and cynical enough not to follow up leads with the potential to change medicine for ever?

    This profound question applies not only to homeopathy but to every branch of complementary/alternative/integrative medicine. It’s usually summed up with the comment that the name for alternative medicine that works is ‘medicine’.

    But of course, one can anticipate the response that quite a few ‘conventional medics and scientists’ do embrace one or more branches of CAM. Like the occasional climate scientist who denies that climate change is mediated by human generation of carbon dioxide, or the occasional molecular biologist who embraces creationism or ‘intelligent design’, I see these people as the “exceptions that prove the rule”.

    I am unaware of any conventional astronomers who embrace astrology or professional, long-distance flyers who embrace flat-earthism, but I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong. Human diversity has boundless capacity for unsupportable beliefs to cloud otherwise reasonable minds.

  • First, Hahnemann was a lousy scientist an including his writings is hilarious. Conveniently Malik omitted one paper, that of JW Begbie 1855 who came to the conlusion – by looking at mortality rates that belladonna as a preventative measure in scarlet fever does not work.

  • Edzard Ernst says: “It seems obvious to me that the authors of such reviews have done some ‘research’ and believe strongly in the correctness in what they write. It embarrasses me to see how such people, full of good will, can be so naive, ignorant and wrong.”

    I’m afraid it is not obvious to me.
    What evidence is there that these practitioners are ‘full of good will’, ‘naive’, or ‘ignorant’.
    Might they not be quacks and fraudsters?
    Which is more likely – that these folks sincerely do believe what they promote, or that they are out to make a fast buck?

    How do we know? How can we tell?

  • Some quotes from Edzard’s article:
    I get a little embarrassed.
    It seems obvious to me
    It embarrasses me to see how such people, full of good will, can be so naïve, ignorant and wrong.
    this is when my embarrassment quickly turns into anger
    articles like the above spread nonsense and misguide people about important issues. THEY ARE DANGEROUS!
    Surely, this shows more clearly than anything else how deluded homeopaths really are!!!

    Have you thought of going to see someone to discuss these issues with?

  • I get a little embarrassed
    It embarrasses me to see how such people, full of good will, can be so naïve, ignorant and wrong.
    this is when my embarrassment quickly turns into anger
    articles like the above spread nonsense and misguide people about important issues. THEY ARE DANGEROUS!
    the deplorable ineptitude of those who promote them
    Surely, this shows more clearly than anything else how deluded homeopaths really are!!!

    Have you considered to to see someone to discuss these issues?

  • 19 papers in 200 years? That’s far too many! They’re diluting its efficacy!

  • I just saw that the subject will feature prominently during the HOMEOPATHIC WORLD CONGRESS in June 2017 (

    “André Saine, Canada: A brief overview of the extraordinary success of homeopathy in epidemics”
    “Stefanie Jahn, Germany: Validity and significance of historical data as the example of Spanish Flu”
    “Raj K. Manchanda, India: Homoeopathy in epidemics: Building up evidence”
    “Claudia Wein, Germany: Clinical Studies concerning homoeopathic treatments of epidemics”

  • Have any of you who knock homeopathy ever tried it? I didn’t believe in it and I believed how it was just quackery etc. Then I got very sick, and my M.D. couldn’t help. I was overly fatiqued constant erutations, I couldn’t climb stairs with out going to emergency room, and it literally felt like I was dying. UCLA medical hospital said yes you are very sick, but we don’t know what’s wrong with you, and they didn’t help, Scripps Medical Hospital said the same thing, and didn’t help. I was loosing weight, I couldn’t eat without getting sick, and all the doctors said don’t worry we will figure it out, and then they didn’t. This went on for years, and friends talked about homeopathy, but like you I thought it was quackery. Finally I thought well at least this homeopathic remedy won’t hurt it’s just sugar, and I was so sick, I was ready to try anything. But guess what it actually made me sicker. So I waited a few days and tried it again and yes it made me sicker. So I thought wait, their is something it this thing. this isn’t just a sugar pill. It wasn’t helping, but in Homeopathy they keep telling you, that you have to have the right remedy. This was something I didn’t understand. So instead of trying to find the right remedy on my own, I went to a homeopath, and she gave me Phos. Acid 200c. I got so sick I thought I was going to die, but in 4 or 5 days the effects from the homeopathic remedy wore off, but I wasn’t any better. But the thing is it had an effect, and since nothing else helped, I felt positive that it had a negative effect, because it had an effect which means all the things I was told that it was just sugar was a lie, so maybe it would work if I could just find the right remedy. But I didn’t want to go through what I just went through, and I started to discover is that most homeopaths have learned at home and are not really professional homeopaths. I decided wouldn’t take another remedy until I knew more, and studied for a year before I tried it again, and no I had not gotten any better, and yes during that time I went to more hospitals and had more tests. I did try acupuncture during that time, and some Chinese medicines, and did get some relief from them, but know I was not getting better and I now only weighed 118 pounds. Now I was on the world Karate team and fought against 47 countries in the world tournament, before I got sick I could do a 350 pushups, and I was in great shape and weighed 150 pounds. Now I was so sick I couldn’t walk a block, and I only weighed 118 pounds, and my doctors could only tell me that yes I was very sick, but I illness fell through the crack of conventional medicine. To be honest if conventional medicine would have done anything other then make me sick I never would have tried alternative medicines. Anyway back to homeopathy.

    After studying it for a year I tried another remedy, and it only made my symptoms worse, but I didn’t quit bought a homeopathic repertory, and kept studying the remedies, and eventually I found one that really sounded like me, and I tried it, it was Calcarea Carbonica, and I took it in a 30c, and I felt better the next day, so I took it again, and I felt even better. This was so strange, and I had been so sick just a few days earlier, and for so many years, I couldn’t believe it. So I took it in a 200c dose, and I was scared when I took it because I was worried that it might have negative reaction and I would be sick like other homeopathic remedies made me. But that didn’t happen. I felt great. I felt like I did before I got sick. It was incredible. So I didn’t take it again for about a week and then I started feeling sick again, and took it again, and I felt good again. Eventually the remedy didn’t work, and my symptoms changed, and I was still sick, and I took Lycopodium, and I felt better, than pretty soon Lycopodium didn’t work and I took Sulphur, and I felt better. To make a long story short, eventually none of those three remedies would help and I started getting sick again, but the symptoms had changed. I became a homeopath, although not a practicing Homeopath, but I kept studying and the more I learned the better I was at choosing the right remedy. I got sick when I was 34 years of age. I am now 71 almost 72, I have treated friends occasionally and once I went down to Mexico and treated people there using homeopathy, only because they were sick and I could help. I still have to take homeopathy, but I can now do a hundred pushups, I can flat out run a hill, I do martial arts again, and I also box with guys in their 20s, and I know you probably won’t believe a word I’m saying, and will never try homeopathy, instead just condemn it without ever trying it when your sick. And if you do try it you probably won’t take the right remedy, and people like you have been doing this over 200 years, and guess what I did it too. If I hadn’t gotten sick and gotten well using homeopathy I would be saying exactly what you are saying, so I can’t make any judgements here, it’s just the way we humans are. I guess the only thing to say about homeopathy is it’s only for the privileged few. I still go to an M.D. at times for a physical, but to be honest I am healthier than my doctor, and he’s fifty five. I can run further, do more pushups, and get it up longer, and I think and believe that eating right, exercise, meditation, and homeopathy all work. I also know if I get in a car accident and get busted up, please take me to an emergency room. If I am having a heart attack please take me to an emergency room. At the same time my blood pressure is 115/70. I’m feeling good I look like I am 55 and in very good shape. So I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I’m just saying we all have different experience, and I thank god the day I finally decided to give homeopathy. I mean even the queen of England has a homeopath treating her, the prime minister of Holland, and even John D. Rockefeller went to a homeopathy. I like I said it’s only for the privileged few.

    • GEORGE

      Thanks for sharing your history.
      I’m still not sure what cured you. I’m not even sure if you are claiming that you are cured. You listed a few remedies that made you only temporarily feel better, and then you said you became a homeopath.
      Perhaps you could explain more.

      It sounds like you ARE doing well, congratulations on that.

      • I have found it’s very difficult to explain homeopathy to those who do not understand it, and have not studied it. Further even if they have studied it, if they haven’t tried it to see that it works, they will still not believe in it. This is and always has been the way it is. It’s the way I was, so I get it. In fact most of the great homeopaths did not believe in homeopathy prior to trying it. James Tyler Kent’s wife was dying, he was a doctor and did not believe in homeopathy. He would not let a homeopathy into his house. Finally she became so ill, and he knew their was nothing he could do to save her. So too appease her, because she wanted to see a homeopath, he let her see one. He never expected her homeopathic treatments to make her better, in fact he never expected her to get well. After treated by the homeopath she got better, and she was healed. After this he took up studying homeopathy. You can look up more about him on this link.

        Another Homeopath Von Bönninghausen had tuberculosis, and at the time it was considered a death sentence, and he was only given a short time to live. With no other choices a friend suggested he try this new type of medicine, Homeopathy. He did, and he got better. So he devoted the rest of his life to studying it. You can learn more from this on this linkönninghausen

        You asked if I ever got well? Very good question, and the answer is yes I know longer have the same condition I had when I first started taking homeopathy. Taking everything into consideration, and looking back, it seems that all of my problems stemmed from taking the prescriptions that were given to me by my doctors. At that time, and it still may be the case doctors were handing out antibiotics like they were candy on Halloween. If you had a cold, or the flu, the first thing they gave you was an antibiotic. If you had pimples, or other types of eruptions on your skin, out came the prescription pad, and antibiotics were prescribed. Hopefully it’s a little better now. I haven’t taken an antibiotic in 40 years. Prior to getting sick, I was taking them often, and if I get the flu, or a cold I take what ever homeopathic medicine fits the symptoms and I get better. At least so far.

        I think what I developed was Candidiasis. A systemic case of candidiasis, and I think the oral consumption of antibiotics lead to this infection. At the time Doctors insisted there was no such thing. Even today many doctors laugh if I say I believe this is what caused my illness. This diagnosis back then was about as well accepted as Homeopathy was. It other words doctors then believe that such a diagnosis was quackery. I think you will find the diagnosis of Candidiasis is still not fully accepted by the medical community even today. Or at least there is still doctors who believe it is quackery. At least by those who still prescribe antibiotics like they were candy. I haven’t taken any antibiotics in 40 years, and I have no intention of taking any now. Although I would if it was a life threatening infection and a homeopathic remedy didn’t work, but so far that’s not the case. I got an infection from a cat scratch a few years back. I had a red line running up my arm to my shoulders, and the hospital said if I didn’t take the antibiotics I could and probably would die. I filled the prescription, and was going to start them in the morning, but that night I took the homeopathic remedy that seemed to fit the symptoms, and the next day I was better. So I stayed on the homeopathic remedy for a few days and infection went away. I think the remedy I ended up taking was Arsenicum Bromatum. To be honest I’m not sure that was the remedy, but I think it might have been. If it wasn’t I took it at another time when I had gotten an infection. That particular remedy is used often when people get an infection caused by a superbug at the hospital and when antibiotics aren’t working. But if you have an infection, I think it’s probably smarter to take the antibiotics. Trying to figure out the right homeopathic remedy for a novice is practically impossible. One could call the Homeopathic Education Service, and talk to Dana Ulman, and he could recommend a good homeopath that could help, or treat the person himself, but I would say one would be a lot better off taking the antibiotic and getting well, and first try Homeopathy for a cold, or the flu first. These are things your doctor doesn’t have a good treatment for, and since he might not be able to treat you why not give homeopathy a try. I had bronchial pneumonia once, and the doctor said I needed to be admitted to the hospital. They did have a bed at the time, and he thought I would be okay until the morning. He told me to come back to the emergency room if it got worse that night, and he gave me an antibiotic. Instead I went home and took the homeopathic remedy phosphorus 200c hoping it would work. But please believe me I couldn’t breath and I didn’t want to die, and I was ready to go back to the emergency room, and I also had the prescription filled. I was pretty nervous about it, because none of the homeopathic remedies I had taken helped. But I called Dana Ulman at the Homeopathic Education Center, and asked him for his advice and he suggested Phosphorus 200c, so I gave it a try, but I was a bit skeptical, and I was so sick, and wasn’t breathing well, and I was ready to start the antibiotics, and go back to the hospital if I didn’t feel better soon. I took the Phosphorus 200c and in within 2 hours I was feeling a bit better, and took another dose, and two hours later I was much better. I went to sleep and woke up the next morning and I was well. It was amazing. Even then you would think I would be one hundred percent sold on Homeopathy, but every time you take it you wonder if it will work or not. Why, because finding the right remedy is so damn difficult, especially with acute diseases like bronchial pneumonia.

        Homeopathy works, but finding the right remedy isn’t always easy. Drugs are easy, if you have this or that, they always have one or two drugs they’re going to give you. With homeopathy there are over 3,000 remedies, although a dozen or so remedies cover most illnesses. I have been doing it a long time, and it still takes a lot of effort and thought to find the right remedy. I have to go back to work, I am doing a rewrite on a movie, and we’re shooting on Thursday.

        Now I would like to say I don’t think we ever really get completely well. We all inherit certain weaknesses from our ancestors. Or should we say we have inherited susceptibility to many common diseases do to small changes in many genes. This means one person might be more likely to get heart disease, or diabetes, or mental disease. Predisposition can be caused by many factors including identified genetic change. In homeopathy this was identified by Samuel Hahnemann several hundred years ago. Of course he had no knowledge of genetics, and he called this phenomenon a miasm. Here’s a link to get an idea of what he referred to as a miasm.

        I think he simply observed in his patients exactly what doctors are finally observing now in their patients, except now they finally have the knowledge to say that it’s caused by changes in genes. Yet he came up with this theory two hundred years ago and was ridiculed for it. And in fact it seems like people are still ridiculing him for his observations, for what other doctors couldn’t understand at the time. Of course they had no idea at the time their was such a thing as Genes.

        Another thought, aging is a disease, one we currently do not completely understand. So no I am not completely well, new things come up all the time do to the aging process. AND NO, I don’t think we can depend only on homeopathy. I think eating, and also fasting is important. I think exercise has to be a part of daily activity. I think meditation, and prayer is good, and necessary. One has to let go and let God, even if one thinks God doesn’t exist. Why do I say that, because other wise we try to control our environment, every aspect of our lives, and it doesn’t work. Things happen, or as Forest Gump said “shit happens.”

        • I used to joke that I have never received a short correspondence from a homeopath.
          In any case: “I have found it’s very difficult to explain homeopathy to those who do not understand it, and have not studied it.”
          that means you cannot explain it, because people who understand it need no explanation.

          • I’ll will keep this short.


            Please pay no attention to me. I’m just happy that Homeopathy works for me. This is too much like he said she said. I don’t mind being wrong. Once again I was just stating my experience. Please I’m sure your right, but at the same time it doesn’t change the fact that it works for me.

          • “Please pay no attention to me.”
            what a strange comment from someone who keeps posting on my blog!
            are you sure you are ok?

    • Dear Mr. Mercier,
      this was quite a long story. Allow me to quickly sum it up:

      *When you were 34 (probably around 1983), you started feeling sick. It is unclear what caused this feeling.
      *You started trying different things to get better (most likely several things at the same time… you mentioned medical treatments, several different homeopathic substances, eating right, exercise, meditation).
      * Now, 37 years you feel better and you give homeopathy credit for this, although the relief that you felt after each of the many different homeopathic substances that you tried was always only temporary.
      *The main reason why you credit homeopathy for your apparent improved condition is your personal experience.

      Unfortunately, personal experience is not a reliable way to assess if a treatment works or not.
      Every single person is affected by many unknown, confounding factors. May I ask: how can you be so sure that the perception of your health did not improve because of other factors?
      Just to mention a few:
      *Many health problems get better without treatment (they are called self-limited). This can also happen after years.
      *How did you rule out placebo-effects?
      *Is it possible that you developed mental strategies over time to cope better with your health condition?
      *Was the changed diet and/or the exercise in fact responsible for your improvement?
      *How about other possible factors (stress related, e.g. job, family)?
      *Etc. pp.

      You see, these are just some possible reasons. It simply is not possible to draw conclusions about a heath treatment by just looking at a single person´s experience.
      What you need to do are randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). This is the only reliable way to distinguish between specific effects of a treatment and all the possible confounding factors, that could affect a single person.

      And guess what… RCTs have been done many times for homeopathy, and the results are clear:
      Homeopathy is not better than placebo and therefore has no specific benefit (just as you would expect for a “remedy” that consists of pure water/sugar pills).

      I posted a comment yesterday to illustrate why people should trust scientific research and EBM, instead of wishful thinking and unproven BS like homeopathy. If you are interested, follow this link:

      • It seems a lot of people have opinions based on studies, and what somebody else tells them. I can understand that, and I support your believes. It works for you. I feel lucky that I’m in my seventies and I’m still able to do 100 push ups and have a girl 30 years younger than me who thinks I am handsome. I still enjoy sparring with men in their twenties. I’m hoping to live a very long time, and enjoy every minute of my life. What I do, may not work for everyone, and I think like myself everyone should be entitled to choose their own medicine, and take care of their own health. I think each of us should bask in our own uniqueness. Please, I was only sharing my own experience with everyone. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m happy to let you or anyone else make up their own minds on what works and what doesn’t work for you. Some people eat a lot of sugar and end up with diabetes, and they seem very happy to take the medication their doctors prescribes. Or they have high blood pressure, and seem to be happy. Or they smoke and won’t quit even when they get lung cancer. This doesn’t make them wrong. It’s just who they are. I am not suggesting that everyone use homeopathic remedies. It’s like Edward Whitmont a famous Jungian psychologist said, and I mentioned it earlier. Homeopathy is for the privilege few. In case you want to know more about Edward C Whitmont, you can go to this link.

        I’m on your side. I think we are all different. I think are bodies are different, and our minds. We each have our way about us, and I think it’s what makes each and everyone of us beautiful. I’m sure nothing I do has been proven in double blind studies to work. It doesn’t mean I’m going to stop, going to stop what I do. If everything is working for you don’t change. I find new answers everyday. I find that many herbs in Traditional Chinese medicine who uses use to be regarded as unscientific now have studies listed on the Nih website. In fact here’s link about homeopathy on the PubMed that you might find interesting.

        I haven’t really told you my entire history, and this is all the time I have at the moment. I have film script that I need to rewrite. I’m shooting this week, and need to go back to work. Your all great, and each and everyone of you seem very smart, and I’m sure your in the best of health. Keep up the good work.

      • One more thing about drugs, and I am going to include all drugs. I personally don’t like them. but if you do good luck.

        Are there any side effects from all these drugs people take with all these studies behind them?

        I did a quick check, and I thought this was interesting. Does this mean people should quit their drugs? I certainly hope they don’t. If they’re keeping you alive or making you feel better. Your probably doing the right thing.

        Still How many people die from pharmaceutical drugs?
        Out of the 783,936 annual deaths from conventional medicine mistakes, approximately 106,000 of those are the result of prescription drug use [1]. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, two-hundred and ninety people in the United States are killed by prescription drugs every day [4].
        Prescription Drugs Kill Over 100,000 People Each Year, Are You Bei…


          Sir, I couldn’t agree with you more about prescription drugs.
          Do meds kill people, yes.
          Beyond that, at a minimum, meds make many people sick. Many times more harm than they are doing good.

          Even antibiotics have lost efficacy in recent years due to over prescribing and overuse.

          • public warning:

            whenever RG agrees with you, you know for sure you’re wrong

          • @EE

            lol, certainly GEORGE MERCIER is not the first person here that I agree with on prescription meds being unhealthful, nor will he be the last…. we are many. Those with our eyes wide open have personally witnessed and experienced poor health and death as a result of the pharma industry.

            I couldn’t care less about what you think professor, nor the claims of the pharma industry.

          • I know there are many as wrong as you; one of the reasons why I do this blog

          • @EE

            HOGWASH !!

            This blog is NOT a public service announcement. This blog is funded by the pharma industry, and also a platform for you to sell your books.

            So Edzard, pharma meds do no harm ?

          • you don’t need to make it so very obvious that you are deluded – most people can make up their own mind

          • your aim in life seems to be to get banned from this blog;
            for now, I will not do you this favour, but I will from now on only post comments of yours that make a minimum of sense.
            I am afraid these might not be many.

          • @RG

            “This blog is funded by the pharma industry”

            Yes, yes. You’d love that to be true, wouldn’t you? Any evidence to support the accusation?

            No. None whatsoever. Just your own imagination. As with most of your fatuous arguments.

          • he seems to be the best pigeon chess player around

  • I should have edited my post, the English is terrible. Everyone I am sure will be able to figure out what I was trying to say. Still I should have taken the time to edit it. I SORRY, NO EXCUSES, I’M JUST SORRY.


Leave a Reply to has Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.