Page 15 - Winter 18-19

Let's make this contrast more evident. One of the most dramatic experiences people had, historically, was the effectiveness of homeopathy in epidemics. If we look back at how homeopathy entered this country and then was adopted, steadily, by allopathic or eclectic doctors, it is relevant. Homeopathy, as a new and quite different approach, would obviously not attract doctors trained in another method just because it is presented to them. It was the very dramatic difference in the hospital and medical organization records between the conventional treatment of the time and the homeopathic outcome that impressed them. We are talking here of a difference in mortality of less than 6% for homeopathic treatment compared to a mortality of 16% to 72% with the conventional medicine of the time. It was this success of homeopathic treatment that was responsible for this continued and steady adoption of the homeopathic method by the medical doctors of this time. This was also a factor in the enthusiasm to build a monument to Dr. Hahnemann, a gesture of appreciation for what homeopathy had done for so many.
Why then does this not have significance when these records of treatment in epidemics is presented to colleagues?
Usually there is one of two reasons why this is dismissed. o It all happened so long ago. There is the underlying assumption in our culture that observations a (relatively) long time ago are not accurate. This is not examined by most minds but there is the assumption that people back then were superstitious, prejudiced, ignorant, not scientific. This is coupled to the presumed “progress through science” that implies that the way we understand things today is more accurate than how they were understood a century or more ago. Diagnosis is more accurate, understanding of disease much advanced, etc.
The same epidemics, if they happened today, would have quite different outcomes. This implies that the allopathic treatment would be better than the homeopathic. This is obviously an assumption that would have to be confirmed in experience. Even if this is so, which I very much doubt, it is still a fact that the figures of epidemics treated with homeopathy (assuming they are not just completely fraudulent) give a very low level of mortality (less than 6%). The homeopathic outcome was damn good.
Homeopathic Research
An obvious response to this objection is for homeopathy to provide more recent, contemporary, research studies that show the level of effectiveness. There have been hundreds of studies and reports that relate to homeopathic practice. They are not always the type of study we, as homeopathic practitioners, would like to see in the sense they do not reflect homeopathic practice as it is actually done, or they do not adhere to the principles of homeopathy.
For example, instead of individualized prescribing, all the individuals with the “same diagnosis” are given the same remedy irrespective of the differences in the symptoms presenting.
If this is done and the outcome not impressive it is then considered evidence that homeopathy is useless. Obviously, this is not a fair way to evaluate it, and again, it reflects the resistance to the method. If we then object that it was not properly done, this is not given credence.
It is easier to understand the dilemma if we were to do a study of an allopathic drug, say an antibiotic, that instead of being given to individuals having bacterial infections that we selected a group based on some other criteria and gave all of them foot baths with the antibiotic solution. It
has no effect and we dismiss, then, allopathic medicine on this basis.
Here is an example contemporary study showing effectiveness with homeopathy.
Homeopathic Treatment of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial2
Edward H. Chapman, MD, DHt Clinical Instructor, Harvard University School of Medicine
Richard J. Weintraub, MD, Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts University School of Medicine
Michael A. Milburn, PhD, Professor Department of Psychology University of Massachusetts
Therese O’Neil Pirozzi, ScD, CCC/SP, Assistant Professor Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts
Elaine Woo, MD, Instructor in Medicine Harvard University School of Medicine Boston, Massachusetts
Background: Mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) affects 750,000 persons in the United States annually. Five to fifteen percent have persistent dysfunction and disability. No effective, standard pharmacological treatment exists specifically for this problem. We designed a pilot research project to study the clinical effectiveness of homeopathic medicine in the treatment of persistent MTBI.
Method: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 60 patients, with a four-month follow-up (N = 50), was conducted at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital (SRH). Patients with persistent MTBI (mean 2.93 years since injury, SD 3.1) were randomly assigned to receive a homeopathic medicine or placebo. This pilot study was undertaken to assess the effect of homeopathic treatment
13
Continued on p14