| · Patients' own drugs
· APPS
· CHRE
· Homoeopathy
· Retention fee
· The register
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Homoeopathy
Why it is an utterly implausible treatment
From Mr T. Harris, FRPharmS
Edzard Ernst is right — homoeopathy is “... an utterly implausible
treatment” (PJ, 4 September, p323).
However, later in his article he shades his view by a tentative association
with the hypothesis that dilution proportionately increases “potentiation”.
This apparently occurs because of the energy imparted during succussion
and “
... the structural state of a solution that builds up during the dilution
process”.
Here I pause to ask what happens in the case of sulphur and other solid “mother” substances
which are insoluble in water and alcohol and are therefore diluted for
homoeopathic use by titration with lactose?
A prototype for homoeopathy was launched by Hippocrates (similia similibus
curantur) some 2,500 years ago. Hahnemann inherited his legacy about 200
years ago (and modified it) at a time when there was a huge vacuum in the
efficacious treatment of disease and any new approach was readily sponsored.
Again, Professor Ernst is right when he declares in his final paragraph “...
we should first ask, does it work?”
Because homoeopathy is described as an holistic treatment (ie, it does
not treat the symptoms directly but the cause of the symptom, which in
turn is influenced by an individual’s constitutional type), it seems
to me impossible to devise a form of double-blind trial which would provide
a satisfactory answer. Hence we should have been showered with numerous
anecdotal experiences, most of which, if truthful, are unconvincing.
However, your readers may wish to consider the following fact: a well known
pharmaceutical company which sells over the retail counter its own brand
of homoeopathic remedies, labels them with this disclaimer: “A homoeopathic
medicinal product without approved therapeutic indication.”
Tennyson Harris
Southport,
Merseyside |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal