The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7247 p616-618
3 May 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 75K

  The Charter
  Period-of-treatment fee
  Homoeopathy
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

Homoeopathy

A typical misunderstanding

From Mr A. S. Pinkus, MRPharmS

John Sharp's response (PJ, 5 April, p477) to my letter (PJ, 22 March, p401) highlights the reason I have felt it necessary to teach pharmacists homoeopathy for the past 20 years. It embodies the typical misunderstanding that arises from a cursory glance at the subject.

First, "homoeopathically prepared" calcium phosphate 6x is a euphemism for a biochemic tissue salt, the principles of which are the converse of homoeopathy. Secondly, the book he quotes from is an oversimplistic guide to homoeopathy which would lead him to the erroneous conclusion he has made about the remedy. The two sentences he quotes are an abstract from a four-page monograph for calcium phosphate in the original text, derived from the provings in which homoeopathic calcium phosphate would have been given repeatedly to healthy volunteers to elucidate its action as a remedy.

I wonder what sense any of us would make of a similar abstract from the datasheet of a drug?

Tony Pinkus
Chief Pharmacist
Ainsworths Homoeopathic Pharmacy

Does not reflect modern thinking

From Dr S. B. Kayne, FRPharmS

For more than a decade John Sharp (PJ, 26 April, p572) has disputed that homeopathic remedies can possibly work without accompanying scientific evidence. By this I imagine he means randomised controlled trials. As I have pointed out on several occasions RCTs are not the gold standard he would have us believe for a variety of reasons, not the least being rigid inclusion criteria. It has been acknowledged by many that patient oriented outcome measures and observational studies are important sources of evidence in orthodox medicine as well as in complementary interventions. Mr Sharp's intransigence does not reflect modern thinking, which is so much part of our profession in these changing times.

Steven Kayne
Glasgow

Is practising homoeopathy professional misconduct?

From Mr S. H. Baylis, FRPharmS

May I congratulate Michael Samson on his daring comments on the practice of homoeopathy (PJ, 19 April, p547). Above all, his letter raises the issue of professional integrity.

Surely the time is now overdue when the practice of homoeopathy should be banned as "professional misconduct". The main problem in getting the legislation adopted will not lie in any evidence-based arguments but rather in the pressure that the homoeopathic world will display to defend their income, which is derived from a way of life that is completely unscientific.

S. H. Baylis
Rugby, Warwickshire

A better understanding of homoeopathy

From Mr J. B. Price, MRPharmS

The following theoretical outline should go some way towards promoting a better understanding of homoeopathy.

I would like to point out that the realisation that all models and theories are approximate, is basic to modern scientific research.¹

Max Planck said "... strictly speaking there is no matter" and Albert Einstein said "... the field is the only reality".

One hundred years ago quantum theory recognised that matter is nothing but compressed energy. If we accept this then we can say that the human body consists of compressed energy and is an energy field which is characterised by electromagnetic oscillations.

Orthodox medicine approaches disease at a material level. Homoeopathy's approach may be thought of as being at an informational level.

Orthodox medicine is based on diagnosing and treating illnesses for which standardised therapies are prescribed regardless of the personal particularities of the patient.

Homoeopathy is based on adding to, and supporting, the body's natural energies and self-healing potential.

These claims seem to prompt reasonable and balanced debate involving the placebo effect and time spent with, and individual attention given to, the patient. These features are weighted in favour of the homoeopath and are often used by proponents of conventional methods to explain the rise in popularity of complementary medicine in general.

However it is the apparent illogicality of "potentisation" by dilution which excites so much hostility from believers in conventional methods who seem to rely on the logic: "It can't work therefore it doesn't". In fact the results we get show otherwise. And if science had stuck to that old principle we would never have had antibiotics, vaccinations, television, anaesthetics, motor cars or heavier-than-air flight.

There is nothing scientifically implausible in potentisation if we find the right model. If instead of thinking in terms of the concentration of chemical substances, we think in terms of one of the newest concepts in biology, the information field, then we will have more chance of understanding how homoeopathy works. The homoeopathic preparation becomes more powerful with dilution simply because we are diluting out "noise", meaning the erroneous and unnecessary information that interferes with the message to be carried to the tissues. A parallel is the way that "noise" is disregarded in nuclear magnetic resonance in chemical analysis.

At dilutions of D23 or higher what is left is an energetic information signal characteristic of the original medicament (which can be detected by spectral analysis).² This cannot be explained by substance-based thinking because there is no "stuff" or mass present.

An individual's health or illness is expressed in the individual's personal oscillation image. The oscillations of the specific potentised remedy can then be thought of as eliminating the pathological oscillations of the specific diseased tissue.³

Brian Price
Aberdare, Mid Glamorgan

Another example of muddled thinking?

From Dr R. J. Schmidt, MRPharmS

I recently (PJ, 22 March, p398) drew attention to the muddled thinking behind the homoeopathic use of arnica. John Sharp raised similar concerns about calcium phosphate (PJ, 5 April, p477). In response, Lawrence Collin (PJ, 19 April, 547) points out that homoeopathic remedies have undergone a process of "proving" but neglects to identify an original publication documenting this process. Can anyone identify the publications in which the proving of arnica or calcium phosphate is described?

According to Mr Collin, the virtues of calcium phosphate will have been identified in a group of healthy volunteers. This is in accordance with what is written in Ruddock's homoeopathic vade mecum¹ that "we must prove drugs upon the healthy and administer them in small doses for the disease conditions which they are able to counterfeit ...". However, there is no suggestion in Ruddock's book that proving is done in patients, yet Mr Collin suggests that it is. Is this yet another example of muddled thinking?

According to Ruddock, the origins of homoeopathy lie in Samuel Hahnemann's desire to understand how drugs work. Dilution of a drug was initially simply an attempt to minimise its toxicity. Only later did the idea of infinitesimal dilution emerge, to become the subject of ridicule. Ruddock acknowledged this ridicule but counselled that "the truth or falsehood of homoeopathy can only be determined by experiment ...".

In his earliest experiments, Hahnemann was surprised to find that a large oral dose of Tincture of Cinchona Bark caused in him "all the symptoms of an attack of ague" — an intermittent fever we now know to be associated with malaria. Unfortunately, Hahnemann and his followers have chosen to ignore the fact that homoeopathic doses of cinchona or quinine are ineffective for malaria. Or are they? Do homoeopaths pack Chin. Sulph. 6C in preference to mefloquine 250mg when travelling to malarious places? If not, why not?

Neither potentisation by dilution nor the law of similars stand up to detailed scrutiny. But there is evidence that a practitioner (in the widest sense) who truly cares for a patient's health and has the time to offer comfort and understanding, even prayer, medicine, or other therapy, will encourage self-healing. Call it the placebo effect if you like, but do not dismiss it. The placebo effect represents a positive outcome for a significant proportion of patients. We have yet to learn how best to exploit the phenomenon. I suspect that a belief in homoeopathy has much in common with a belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus — a degree of wonder and imagination is required by both the patient and the practitioner.

This may not be "science" but it is "medicine".

Richard Schmidt
Barnoldswick,
Lancashire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Period-of-treatment fee)
Next Topic (The Society)