Page 15 - Spring 15

Numerous small but valuable studies like these have been carried out over the years but RCTs of veterinary homeopathy remain the holy grail of evidence-building, just 44 of them having been published in peer-reviewed journals by the end of 2013 (British Homeopathic Association, 2014).
Perhaps the greatest spanner in the works as far as gaining acceptance of homeopathy is concerned is the fact that we don’t understand its mode of action. People want to know not only that homeopathy works, but also HOW it works. Researchers using animal models often propose a possible mode of action, e.g. the remedies act directly on inflammatory mediators, or on the immune system, or on certain enzyme pathways and so on. These are explanations based on a conventional and materialistic view of the body and in many respects they are half-right. As homeopaths, however, we know, the situation is significantly more complex than this, because our remedies act first and foremost at an energetic level, on the vital force itself. They affect the whole organism, touching the mind and spirit as much as they act on the body. If we want to explain the mode of action, it would seem logical to study the energetic qualities of our remedies and the phenomenon of the vital force itself, not simply the physical manifestations of treatment. Homeopathy is not allopathy, it is energy medicine and it requires a completely new approach to research. To quote a wise but unknown author: ‘If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got’. Over the decades countless animals have been experimented on, yet this has brought us no nearer to demonstrating mode of action. It is time for something different – to move out of the tired rut of animal experiments, to be innovative and creative and to embrace new ideas emanating from other fields of science.
Translating the results of basic animal studies to real-life situations involving sick humans is an impossible task (see Reason 7), and we know from mainstream medicine that it is clinical research rather than basic research that has the most effect on patient care (Pound and Bracken, 2014). As a consequence, none of the animal experiments referred to above are likely to be of help to practising homeopaths. Stuart Close, professor of homeopathic philosophy at the New York Medical College from 1909-1913, concluded that ‘... nothing of any real therapeutic value has ever been learned by experiment upon animals that could not have been learned better, more simply and more humanely by harmless experiments upon human beings; while the knowledge gained in such experiments on human beings is equally valuable for use in the treatment of sick animals’. The great majority of our patients present with chronic complaints that develop naturally and uniquely, conditions that are influenced by life events, environmental factors, inherited traits and so on that all need to be
considered when prescribing. Relatively few patients present with severe poisonings, burns, artificially induced tumours etc and even if they did, they would receive individualized treatment because homeopaths, of course, practise ‘personalised medicine’ (see Reason 7) and prescribe on the totality of the symptoms not the condition itself.
If animal experiments don’t positively influence patient care, don’t add significantly to the evidence base and haven’t brought us any closer to discovering mode of action, then who exactly does benefit from this research and why is it still being done? To boost publication records and academic careers? Out of curiosity? Out of personal bias and habit? Of all the reasons for research these are the ones least well tolerated by society, a point explored further in Reason 5.
Reason 4: It’s not homeopathy
Most basic animal research in homeopathy is geared towards testing the efficacy of a highly diluted medicine rather than the effectiveness of homeopathy itself. The work is heavily influenced by an allopathic approach to disease and treatment and it reflects both the conventional backgrounds of the researchers involved and a lack of training and experience in homeopathic prescribing. The remedies used are sometimes patented combinations, the homeopathic rationale for which may be unclear (Canova, for example, contains 17 different remedies, 15 of which are polycrests). More typically they are single polycrests and usually relevant to the condition studied – although this is not always the case. One study used Chamomilla 6c to treat depression in mice induced by housing healthy animals with dying cage mates (Pinto et al, 2008). The researchers concluded from behavioural studies that the remedy ‘hastened the recovery of normal behaviour’ but as the results did not appear to be statistically significant, this conclusion lacks foundation. From a homeopathic perspective Chamomilla appears a strange choice for the condition studied, but then the researchers in question may not have seen the effects of the remedy on a fractious two-year old cutting teeth.
The process of making animals ill and then treating them with a single remedy appears crude and oversimplified to the homeopath, particularly as the focus is almost always on the physical body and on what happens at the organ or cellular level. (According to the Sensation method [Sankaran, 2004] this information equates to Sankaran’s levels 1 and 2: name and fact.) In focussing on the detail researchers become closed to the possibility that the piece of information, they seek, may not be needed to solve the clinical problem being addressed. And they can lose the bigger picture entirely. The role of the vital force, for example, which ‘governs without restriction and keeps all parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation’, is rarely explored.
This is unsurprising given the mainstream view that humans and animals are simply physical beings made of component parts rather than energetic ones capable of existing and experiencing themselves at many different levels simultaneously (Morrish 2007). Yet to overlook the vital force when studying homeopathy seems absurd. So too does the one-condition-one-remedy approach and inattention to emotional state (usually fear) unless, of course, it forms part of the experiment. This is not homeopathy. It is a pale and distorted version of the therapy that ultimately does it no favours (see Reasons 3, 5, 6).
Reason 5: Public opinion
Public concern about the use of animals in research is a powerful agent for change. It has brought about such things as a complete ban on the testing of cosmetics in Europe and Norway in 2013 (swiftly followed by similar bans in Israel, India and Sao Paulo in Brazil) and has led to the establishment of numerous centres around the world researching alternatives to animal testing in toxicology and medicine.
In 2009 a wide-ranging poll was carried out by YouGov in six EU member states (UK, France, Italy, Germany, Czech Republic, Sweden) before the introduction of a new EU directive on the protection of animals in scientific research (Directive 2010/63/EU). The results were highly consistent across the region and are summarised below.
79% of those polled either agreed or strongly agreed that the new law should prohibit all experiments on animals, which do not relate to serious or life-threatening human conditions, signalling a clear opposition to all non-essential and curiosity-driven research. 84% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the new law should prohibit all experiments causing severe pain or suffering to any animal, while
80% of those questioned agreed or strongly agreed that all information about animal experiments should be publicly available, except confidential information and information that would identify researchers or where they work.
Directive 2010/63/EU, now part of law in all member states, broadly reflects these attitudes and desires. Its emphasis on transparency is expected to have a major influence on the use of animals in scientific research in Europe - and ultimately in other parts of the world.
The directive requires all researchers to produce a short non-technical summary of the work, they plan to do with animals. In it they will need to state the unknowns that are being addressed, the predicted harm that will be done to the animals and why alternatives can’t be used. These summaries will be published on national websites that can be accessed by the public. Entering words such as “homeopathy” and “animal model”, for example, into a
13