Science is defined by Wikipedia as being from the Latin word ’scientia’ meaning knowledge; ‘an effort to discover and increase human understanding of how the physical world works’. It makes reference to the words phenomenon - any occurrence that is observable and simulation - the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs or process.

So far so good; looks like Homoeopathy should fit as a science given that it aims to increase our understanding of the effects of substances and how a simillimum remedy aims to restore the individual to a healthy state.

Pseudoscience is defined by Wikipedia as ‘a body of knowledge methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status’. So now the truth is revealed. The definition of science alone is not enough to call something scientific; it must pass the ultimate test - the scientific method.

It appears that science has conditions, is not free form and is biased towards methodologies that are narrow and contradictory. Of course, there’s no point arguing about it. Science and their converts can have their scientific method; it won’t change the power of Homoeopathy. And it won’t change the things they can’t explain.

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?

Homeopathy for Everyone did an excellent interview with Homoeopath Beth Rotondo recently. She discussed the lasting effects of a preservative called Thimerosal (or Thimerson), which is an alcohol and mercury mixture used for many years in vaccines, particularly childhood vaccines. It is now reportedly used in flu shots, which children receive as standard annually. Due to large stockpiles of the vaccines used, children may still be administered with ones that contain Thimerosal - the preservative is thought to contribute to autism and other related disorders affecting the central nervous system.

As Thimerosal is a substance known to cause strong reactions, it was thought to be an ideal substance for a homoeopathic remedy. It has been used in a clinical setting by Beth Rotondo for over two years with great improvement, particularly in autistic children.

P.S Here is a website demonstrating the use of the homoeopathic remedy Thimerosal, in a child with autism.

A.

Alan Schmukler of the website Homeopathy for Everyone discusses the issue of what it is to be a victim of low expectations when it comes to orthodox medical treatment:
A young doctor recently told me that he had to present a patient with a choice between her symptoms and a drug with lethal side effects. He said she chose the drug and suffered terribly. He’s a dedicated physician and cares about people, but as a victim of low expectations, he saw nothing wrong with those limited options.

With such inadequate tools, why doesn’t the medical establishment embrace homeopathy? I think one important reason is its magical quality. Of course we know that it’s totally scientific, based on thousands of proving (yes, they count!), hundreds of thousands of clinical cures and numerous studies.

He also refers to a desperate ad campaign for a drug that ‘has never been taken off the market’ as a selling point; check it out here.

A.

A lot of people have never heard of homoeopathy. How many people have not heard of a doctor or GP? How many people accept this as the only method of healing the body? This wasn’t always the case.

Homoeopathy was introduced to Australia in the 1850s by UK trained practitioners. All were equipped with 5 years of training qualifications and according to the British Medical Association standards. By 1883 the first Homoeopathic hospital was opened in Melbourne. Success rates in treating typhoid fever in the 1889 outbreak were higher when treated homoeopathically. By 1901 Sydney had their own hospital. By 1924 the Melbourne Homeopathic Hospital found there were not enough trained homoeopaths to meet the demand and medical practitioners were asked to assist. This brought a lot of changes and the Hospital was no longer entirely homoeopathic. The name was changed to Prince Henry’s Hospital in 1934 and ceased to be a homoeopathic hospital. By World War II homoeopathy was in decline, as antibiotics had paved the way for a faster, speeding bullet for curing ailments of all kinds. Government support and a technology revolution made Homoeopathy appear obsolete and old-fashioned. Combine that with increasing pressure from the American Medical Association (AMA) and pharmaceutical companies with expensive backing. In fact, several natural therapies were suffering the same fate - although cheaper with considerably less side effects and naturally derived.

I will end this post with a summary of my favourite quote from the Organon of Medicine by the founder of homoeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann. The practitioner’s aim & responsibility is to restore the sick to health & vitality, maintain unbiased views & clear about the nature of illness, the best remedy for cure, the proper dose and the nature of the remedy. Take into account lifestyle & environmental factors pertaining to disease, through this the offending invader will be removed. This is achieved by the vital force being elevated to its normal state of power, restored to balance.A

…or so it is according to Rajan Sankaran, an author on homoeopathy. He writes in his book The Spirit of Homoeopathy (1999), that disease is a state of constantly reacting to the past and health is being in the now; the freedom to act in relevancy to situations. The concept of disease being a delusion, stems from an idea of disease being rooted in a survival mechanism. We react to that danger and develop a compensatory measure (like carrying a heavy bag long term and the shoulder adjusts). If the danger is gone and the compensatory measure persists, it then becomes a delusion. Rajan states that delusion = a false perception of reality.

Although I have only read a few chapters, it is definitely engaging reading and provides amazing insight into a topic which is often only explained through physiological causes.