Page 11 - Spring 13

Homeopathy – why does it attract so much controversy?
By Robert Medhurst, Australia (Article courtesy of Homeopathy 4 Everyone)
Robert Medhurst BNat DHom DBM DRM DNutr is a qualified Naturopath and Homoeopath with 28 years of clinical experience and currently practices in the Adelaide Hills in South Australia. He has written many articles and lectured on homeopathy throughout Australia and the U.S. Robert previously operated sev- eral natural therapies practices in Sydney and was involved in teaching and research. He was formerly the Expert Advisor on Homeopathy to the Federal Government of Australia, Dept. of Health and Ageing. He spe- cialises in homeopathy and is the author of The Business of Healing, the definitive guide for clinical practice establishment and man- agement. For more information see adelaidehillsnaturopath.com.au
attack in pharmacy and other orthodox journals1, 2. And it is vilified by national broadcasters3. Organisations have been established with the apparent aim of eradicating it4 and clinical trials that fail to show an effect receive inordinate levels of attention while successful trials are ignored.
What are the criticisms of homeopathy?
There is no scientifically plausible mechanism for Homeopathy
This is certainly true, but it’s also true that the mechanism for the action of many commonly prescribed drugs, such as dexamphetamine in the treatment of ADHD, is yet to be determined. The failure to understand the mechanism of a therapeutic substance, particularly where that substance is a drug, does not normally diminish the enthusiasm for it by prescribers. Why then should homeopathy be criticised for this?
The concept of a memory for water is unscientific
This relates to the fact that many researchers have speculated that the potentisation process used to manufacture homeopathic medicines causes the water in which the medicines are made to retain a “memory” of the starting material from which the potencies are derived. In response to this criticism, we should be clear on what “science” actually is. Science is not a
body of facts. It’s a process used
to study, by deduction and infer-
ence, specific issues that one seeks to under- stand. The fact that the memory of water has yet to be adopted by orthodox science does not make it unscientific.
In fact, various studies have shown that water may be imprinted by the electromagnetic ener- gy signature derived from physical substances to which it is exposed5-7. These studies would tend to support the concept the memory of water.
There’s nothing in a homeopathic medicine so it couldn’t possibly work
Those making these kinds of assertions seem to miss the point that past certain potencies (12C or 24X), a homoeopathic medicine will contain the base substance (alcohol and water in the case of a liquid, or sugar in the case of a solid dose form such as a pilule) and it will also contain the electromagnetic energy that’s derived from the starting material via the process of potentisation. This latter component is not detectable by normal assay techniques, but its effects are certainly demonstrable. Studies have confirmed that biological systems can be influenced by these electromagnetic frequencies8-12. The criticism that there’s nothing in a homeopathic medicine is also frequently
Lower Limit of Biological Activity of Human Hormones and Metabolites
Substance
Parathyroid Hormone Free Oestrogen
Brain Natriuretic Hormone ACTH
Oestrogen
Vitamin B12
Testosterone
Progesterone
Free Thyroxine (Pregnancy) Triiodothyronine (Children) Acetylcholine (miniature end potential)
Limit
10 picograms/mL 0.6 picograms/mL 4 picograms/mL 20 picograms/mL 10 picograms/mL 150 picograms/mL 200 picograms/mL 100 picograms/mL 5 picograms/mL
Equiv. homeopathic potency
11X
12X
12X
11X
11X
9X
9X 10X 12X 12X 0.0001 picograms/mL 16X
1 picograms/mL
Continued on page 14
9
It’s probably pretty obvious to most that com- plementary medicine (CM) in general attracts a great deal of criticism by advocates of orthodox western medicine. Vitamins are frequently described as agents that do little more than produce expensive urine, herbs are labelled as useless if not outright dangerous. Bach flowers, reflexology and aromatherapy are dismissed as fanciful nonsense. Vast clinical studies with questionable methodology that find no benefit from these therapies are held up as proof that they have no effect while smaller properly designed studies that show them to be suc- cessful are ignored. Yet CM continues to pro- vide relief for millions of people and every year sees more and more people turning to these therapies. This situation appears to cause enor- mous irritation for orthodox western medicine and as much as they’d like it to, CM refuses to go away.
Fortunately, in recent times the critics of herbs and supplements have become marginalised and their credibility has become increasingly dubious as they struggle under the weight of higher quality evidence of clinical effect. Regrettably, criticism aimed at homeopathy remains undiminished. It comes under regular