A professor of pharmacology once put homoeopathy to the test by placing a rat’s intestine into a fluid culture medium containing atropine, a poison from the Atropa Belladonna plant. The poison is known to cause severe stomach cramps. The intestine started to display symptoms of shrinkage and strong traction. Upon adding the homoeopathically prepared Belladonna 90x potency (prepared from fresh juice of the whole plant), the intestine displayed less traction and relaxed, responding to the dosage. Despite the professor’s goal of disproving homoeopathy, she discovered that ‘homoeopathy is effective in the absence of any material substance’. This was despite the the potency of the homoeopathic product (90x) being well beyond 10C (Avogadro’s number) and substances in this case would have no material substance or effect.

Here’s a little excerpt from the Quantum website giving a clear distinction on the difference of homoeopathic potencies. Please note: The placement of the ‘X’ and ‘C’ before or after the numerical amount are interchangeable and retain the same meaning.

• X potencies are diluted at the ratio of 1:10 and shaken 10 times. A X1 is thus created by using 1 drop of the original tincture plus 9 drops of the alcohol-water solution and shaking it 10 times. A X2 by 1 drop of X1 plus 9 drops, etc. . . .
• C potencies are diluted at the ratio of 1:100 and shaken 10 times.
• LM potencies are diluted at the ratio of 1:50,000 and shaken 100 times, with the added specialty that the original substance is a specially produced C 3 potency instead of the original tincture.

References: 1. Quantec.ch; 2. ‘Materia Medica Pura’ Vol. I, S. Hahnemann

Dr. Manish Bhatia of Hpathy.com (Homeopathy 4 Everyone) has written about anti-CAM (Complementary & Alternative Medicine) information on Wikipedia.

Here is a sample of what it states regarding Homoeopathy:

Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence,[7][8][9][10] although advocates of homeopathy point to studies of the effects of compounds diluted almost out of existence.[11][12] Common homeopathic preparations are diluted beyond the point where there is any likelihood that molecules from the original solution are present in the final product; the claim that these treatments still have any pharmacological effect is thus scientifically implausible[13][14] and violates fundamental principles of science,[15] including the law of mass action.[15] Critics also object that the number of high-quality studies that support homeopathy is small, the conclusions are not definitive, and duplication of the results, a key test of scientific validity, has proven problematic at best.[16] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[17] and its use of remedies without active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience;[18] quackery;[19][20][21] or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, “placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst.”[22] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

In response to reading the above excerpt I went to Wikipedia to see the whole article and found a lengthy description of the modality and 167 References. This is in contrast with the search for ‘Conventional medicine’ (but being diverted to ‘Medicine’) with 15 References. My first thought was wow, whoever is slamming Homoeopathy must really think it a threat! To spend enough time to find so many References. Of course, there is neutral information to be found but overall there is definitely a message suggesting homoeopathy is somehow pseudoscientific.

More on this argument in Part 2…
In response to the misleading and bias claims found on Wikipedia, Hpathy.com have decided to launch their own version of Wikipedia, called Wiki4CAM Online Encyclopedia. At the risk of appearing even more of a breakaway from so-called ‘modern medicine’, it will attempt to right the wrongs and provide a CAM practitioner-only view of each modality, from Acupressure to Yoga. I believe this will create an excellent source of one-stop-shop information for practitioners within CAM but outside of this I’m not sure how it will be perceived, particularly because the information on Wikipedia will remain and is open for further comment. Although potential for embarking on a tit-for-tat argument, I believe the focus should be on providing positive, evidence based documentation on the efficacy of homoeopathy and EVERY other modality, on Wikipedia. That is, add to the existing data. What are we afraid of? Do we feel there is insufficient proof of healing? Must we crawl on our knees while others stand tall in their beliefs?