Posts Tagged ‘multitude’

Homeopathy
`We believe that a serious effort to research homeopathy is clearly warranted despite its implausibility.’ That was the conclusion of a group of German and American scientific

researchers who, in 1997, looked at every study of homeopathy they could find. This prestigious trans-Atlantic team carefully assessed the scientific validity of each study, and

then considered the data from studies that were of reasonably good quality.
This kind of study, in which all the available research data on a topic are combined, is called a meta-analysis. There were 119 research studies which were good enough to be

included in this meta-analysis and, taken together, these studies suggested that homeopathy does indeed have some real effects. In other words, it produces significantly more

benefits than simple placebo effect – the psychosomatic improvement which tends to occur with any treatment, even a dummy pill (see p. 233).
Some of the most convincing scientific studies included in the meta-analysis were those relating to homeopathic remedies for allergic conditions (see p. 217). But what exactly

does this mean for allergy sufferers? Is homeopathy a treatment that is worth a try? Unfortunately, it is difficult to say.
Firstly, the evidence from the homeopathy meta-analysis is far from overwhelming, as the researchers themselves point out. The observed improvements – the overall differences

between the placebo and the homeopathic remedy – are not huge. Secondly, even if there are some homeopathic treatments that have real effects, it does not mean that every kind

of homeopathic treatment works. Homeopathy is a very broad field, with a multitude of different approaches. The types of homeopathy that have been tested, and appear to help,

may bear little or no relation to the homeopathic remedies that are generally available (see p. 217).
`Let like cure like’
The central idea in homeopathy – often known as the principle of similars – is that a substance which causes a particular set of symptoms can also, if handled in the right way,

cure symptoms of
a similar kind. In the words of Samuel Hahnemann, the German doctor who invented homeopathy at the beginning of the 19th century, ‘Let like cure like.’
The natural substances that form the basis for homeopathic remedies are mostly derived from toxic plants or minerals. (Sometimes extracts from diseased tissue – called nosodes –

are used instead, but this is a relatively recent development. So is the use of allergen extracts, such as pollen, described on p. 217.) Hahnemann himself began with the

standard drugs of his own day, such as belladonna and arsenic compounds. His innovation was to use them in very much smaller doses than his fellow physicians, and to apply them

to entirely different diseases.
Hahnemann worked by first discovering what the effects of the drugs were, when taken by a healthy person (he experimented on himself and his family for this). Then he tried to

match the symptom pattern produced by the drug with the symptoms of a particular disease. For example, he observed that belladonna produces hallucinations and a hot, dry skin –

symptoms that were also seen in children with scarlet fever. He claimed that, by giving belladonna in very small doses, much less than was normally used, he could stimulate the

body to heal itself of scarlet fever.
Hahnemann, unlike his medical contemporaries, also advocated a good diet, fresh air and exercise. And he was heartily opposed to the conventional medicine of his day, a brutal

business that involved a great deal of blood-letting and large doses of very toxic medicines. Considering how useless, and indeed dangerous, the orthodox medicine of the time

frequently was, Hahnemann’s successes were not really surprising.Less is more’
Homeopathy today is the ultimate version of the ‘less is more’ philosophy. A homeopathic remedy is prepared by taking the basic ingredient, dissolving it in water, and then

diluting that solution over and over again. Imagine pouring a bottle of wine into the Pacific Ocean, and you have a rough idea of how dilute homeopathic remedies are. Making

extreme dilutions was an idea introduced by some of Hahnemann’s followers, after his death.
Dilution is only part of the story, however. With each dilution, homeopaths apply a special shaking-and-tapping technique known as percussing. This was originally done by hand,

but now is often done mechanically. Homeopaths believe that percussing makes the active substance more powerful, despite the dilution. The term used by homeopaths is potency,

and a homeopathic remedy of the highest potency is the one that has been most thorDughly diluted and percussed.
In fact, a simple calculation, using the basic laws of physics, shows that there is nothing there at all but water – many homeo pathic remedies are watered down so thoroughly

that not one Jingle molecule of the active substance is likely to remain. It is  which leads medical researchers to use words such as ,nplausibility’ (see p. 216) when talking

about homeopathy.
Nhat homeopaths do
\ homeopath starts by considering all your symptoms (not just allergies, but any other symptoms as well) and various other characteristics that conventional doctors do not

usually consider, including physical appearance and psychological traits. The homeopath then chooses a substance which, if taken at full strength, would produce a comparable set

of symptoms and characteristics. This approach is called classical homeopathy.
In addition, homeopaths often give advice on diet, sleep, exercise and allergen avoidance. As in the early days of homeopathy, this may be the most important part of the

treatment.
Like many other complementary therapists, homeopaths will listen if you need to talk about personal problems and emotional difficulties, and will offer reassurance or advice.

This can be valuable, though not everyone would agree that a homeopath is the best source for such help. There are two distinct traditions within homeopathy – a scientifically

inclined tradition (represented today by experiments with homeopathic immunotherapy – see right) and a highly metaphysical tradition. Among the many ideas floating about within

the metaphysical tradition is the notion that all illness is a result of psychological or moral failings. Attitudes of this kind, which are quite common among complementary

therapists, can be very damaging (see p. 209).
Sometimes homeopaths recommend avoiding certain foods, on the assumption that the patient suffers from food intolerance, though they rarely use an elimination diet (see p. 194),

the only way to achieve accurate diagnosis.
In addition to all this, some homeopaths also give herbal remedies where they think it will help. This approach is called complex homeopathy.
A much more recent development within homeopathy is homeopathic immunotherapy or HIT, which uses an extreme dilution of an allergen (such as pollen or dust mite) to treat people

who are allergic to that substance. While homeopathic immunotherapy was inspired by conventional immunotherapy, the relationship between the two is a very distant one indeed.

The extensive dilution process means that the liquid used for homeopathic immunotherapy is unlikely to contain even one molecule of the allergen. This puts it in a completely

separate realm from conventional immunotherapy, where the presence of the allergen, and the steadily increasing dose with successive injections, is what produces the beneficial

effect (see p. 166).
Does it work for allergy?
Two scientific trials suggest that HIT makes a difference, albeit a small one, for hayfever and pollen asthma. In the meta-analysis described on p. 216, one of these trials was

given a good rating for scientific reliability, and the other was considered fairly good.
Another type of homeopathic treatment that appeared to be effective for patients with allergic asthma was one using a nosode – an extract of the asthmatic airway itself. A small

sample of the airway was taken from each asthmatic patient, diluted and per-cussed, then given to the patient as a treatment. It seemed to work, and the scientific rating of

this trial was very high.
The third homeopathic treatment that appeared to have an effect in valid scientific studies was Galphimia, used for symptoms in the eye caused by pollen allergy.
If you go to a local homeopath, it is very unlikely that you will be given either of the first two treatments – these are only used experimentally, in large research centres.
The Galphimia treatment might be available from a local homeopath, but it will not necessarily be in the same form as the treatment used in the scientific trial.
Note that all the studies described above are trials with a positive outcome. If you are trying to assess homeopathy overall, you should also consider the many trials that found

no effect. For example, a very careful study of homeopathy for children with asthma, carried out at the University of Exeter and published in 2003, found no benefit from

individualised homeopathy treatment.