This is a full length article, so please pop the kettle on, make a brew, sit down and enjoy!
The current situation
The fundamental right to the freedom of choice in the healthcare of our animals is currently being eroded by governing bodies in several countries including the UK by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), which published a controversial statement on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in 2017. This most recent position statement effectively bans alternative treatment unless conventional treatment is given before or alongside, thus rendering it complementary.
This article will demonstrate that alternative veterinary modalities used exclusively may, in certain circumstances, be in the best interests of the animal. They may also be useful as an integrated part of the animal’s overall veterinary healthcare package. Unfortunately, the RCVS’s view on CAM casts a wide shadow on treatment protocols and can limit vets from referring animals on for CAM treatments. Many CAM modalities can be offered as successful first line treatment, giving a valuable alternative to the purely pharmaceutical drug approach, which may bring with it the risk of unwanted side effects and antibiotic resistance.
To this end, the RCVS 2017 statement will be discussed and critically analysed, followed by the response of CAM4animals, a consumer group representing a wide range of animal owners, farmers, and CAM vets and practitioners. The article will conclude by suggesting a possible way forward to benefit all concerned, particularly our animals.
It is important to state that all vets, including those who use CAM and holistic approaches, are governed by their professional codes of conduct and the welfare of the animal must be paramount in whatever treatment is selected. In no way does this article seek to dismiss conventional treatments as a first line option or in emergency situations.
The ongoing discussion around the RCVS statement
“Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles. In order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary rather than alternative to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based in sound scientific principles. It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession and the public’s confidence in the profession that any treatments not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles do not delay or replace those that do.”
Anyone who is familiar with homeopathic research would take issue with this statement, starting with the first line: “Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use.” This is unquestionably incorrect. Research studies continue to be published in peer reviewed journals, demonstrating the effective use of homeopathic remedies in animals. A prime example of animal research can be found in the following study where homeopathy was used to replace antibiotics in a case of E. coli in piglets with highly successful results (Camerlink et al., 2010).
The Italian Homeopathic data base of veterinary research studies (Marino, F.V.) features a collection of studies on pets and/or livestock animals treated with homeopathic medicines. The source is mostly PubMed (The US National Library of Medicine) and many have positive findings, with several demanding more research. There are also extensive studies listed here: Americans for Homeopathy Choice (2019). These sites are simply a sample of specific veterinary research: there are many more. It is difficult to imagine how the RCVS can dismiss such evidence, or at least fail to research it further. In addition, there are many high-quality research trials on humans via these data bases: (CORE-Hom) and (Bell, I. 2018).
Similarly, I question “Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles.” Homeopathy has its own, very strict set of principles which I outlined in an earlier article ‘Clarification of the Basic Homeopathic Principles’ (Hpathy.com: 2017).
In short, homeopathy is not based on the same principles as conventional medicine in that it treats the whole individual rather than singular symptoms and is hard to test using the randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) by which conventional medicine is typically gauged. However, there is on-going revolutionary research giving insight into how homeopathy might work as evidenced by the New Horizons in Water Science Conference at The Royal Society of Medicine in 2018. Eminent scientists (with no homeopathic bias) including Nobel Laureates, were assembled from around the world. They met to discuss the latest in their findings and revealed that current research is bridging the gap between mainstream science and the cutting-edge science surrounding the homeopathic mechanism of action and Ultra High Dilutions.
The RCVS considers that there is a lack of scientific rationale for homeopathy, thus it needs to be complementary rather than alternative. The words “lack of evidence base” in reference to homeopathy are touted frequently despite the fact many trials have been undertaken, as detailed above. In addition, it is difficult to quantify the vast number of cases treated which are evidenced empirically. What has to be taken into account, are the paradigmatic differences in the two systems of medicine. Systematic reviews, meta -analysis, RCT’s and controlled studies rarely do justice to homeopathic treatment because homeopathy treats the patient and not the disease.
It is imperative to understand that some things do not always make scientific sense in the first instance. However, knowing that they do exist, such as the phenomenon that is gravity, means it can be acceptable for them to be outside the realm of what science can currently explain. Another example is the action of aspirin, which was widely used, and its effectiveness lauded many years before its action was understood. (Walach, 2001). In addition, it is worth considering that both Louis Pasteur and Galileo were initially ridiculed and discredited, yet their theories were eventually embraced and changed science as we once knew it.
The RCVS statement goes on to say: “It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession.” Absolutely. This is why those of us involved in holistic medicine integrate it into our practices; we are not limited to one approach, we have the benefit of education and experience in many different therapies. This optimises rather than threatens animal welfare. The response to the global antibiotic resistance crisis is a good example. The College of Medicine and Integrated Health (2018) stated that “GPs who are trained in complementary medicine including homeopathy, prescribe less antibiotics than GPs without integrative medicine training.” This statement is applicable to those vets who also have the advantage of extensive training in both systems of medicine. This should be embraced and applauded by critics. Indeed, banning the use of homeopathy as a first line treatment under RCVS’s new guidelines is counterintuitive given the dangers surrounding antibiotic use, particularly where further research is being encouraged into homeopathy and herbs: (IAHV: 2017) and (NIHM: 2018).
My advice would be: if homeopathy or other CAM modalities work, is safe and prescribed by qualified vets or doctors, then use it. Veterinary medicine also has to deal with resistant superorganisms, adverse drug reactions, and the problems caused by polypharmacy. Alternative methods of treatment should be widely researched and, where proven to be effective, incorporated into treatment regimes. Likewise, it goes without saying that a purely conventional approach should be subjected to the same scrutiny in terms of research and results.
The RCVS’ rationale and The Faculty of Homeopathy’s response
The RCVS states: “We consider that this welfare need is best served by the use of treatments underpinned by sound scientific principles, and would recommend that both vets and animal owners have this uppermost in their minds when considering treatment.”
The Faculty of Homeopathy’s statement in response to the RCVS can be read in full here. Their response reflects the concerns of their members and pet owners who embrace holistic health modalities. They point out that the RCVS states it expects veterinary surgeons to offer “treatments underpinned by a recognised evidence base.”
The Faculty states: “The evidence base for many conventional medicines used in veterinary practice as well as human medicine is inconclusive. If the RCVS were to apply the same evidential criteria used for homeopathy to all treatments, there would be far fewer clinical options available to the profession.”
There is growing interest in homeopathy from animal owners as they see conventional medicines regularly failing or producing adverse side-effects. This is especially true in livestock farming where there is a drive to reduce the dependence on antibiotics in the light of concerns about antimicrobial resistance, AMR. At such a time, it is contradictory that the RCVS fails to engage with vets who are best placed to offer advice on the appropriate use of homeopathy.
It is clear that by adopting their position in relation to homeopathy and other complementary therapies, the RCVS is limiting the clinical freedom the veterinary profession has always enjoyed. Moreover, in allowing a vocal minority to influence a policy stance, the RCVS has set a dangerous precedent where similar groups could not only influence and further restrict clinical freedom in the future, but also stifle innovation, research and the development of new treatments. This presents a far greater threat to animal welfare than homeopathy could ever do.
The RCVS statement has taken away its members’ freedom to choose what is the best course of treatment for an ill animal. The RCVS has also applied a blanket ban to the use of all alternative therapies even where there are successful trials. This blinkered approach is not just applicable to the RCVS. For instance, acupuncture for humans has become the latest casualty. NICE has failed to include it as a recommended treatment for urinary incontinence (British Acupuncture Council, 2019) even though they were alerted to a high-quality study demonstrating its effectiveness.
The response to the RCVS from CAM4animals
Following on from this, an Animal Owners Charter was devised in order to further support holistic health choices and ensure informed choice (and consent) for all proposed treatment plans for their animals. Much of the Charter should be common practice since it is included in the RCVS Code of Conduct. Nevertheless, there are animal owners who have not experienced this, hence the need for the Charter.
CAM4animals audit reveals shaky foundations for RCVS position statement
After much lobbying, CAM4animals received the documents used by the RCVS on which they based their statement. CAM4animals conducted an in-depth audit of the RCVS documents and found that they were factually weak, scientifically flawed and narrow in scope. In summary they found the following:
In addition, CAM4animals is concerned that RCVS Council members have been seemingly influenced by non-veterinary organisations which promote science scepticism regarding CAM in general and homeopathy in particular. The result is that RCVS’s own members are now placed in the vulnerable position of being formally disciplined and having to provide evidence to support the use of treatments they are legally and professionally qualified to practice and which have supporting evidence from their professional bodies. Evidence the RCVS appears to have chosen to disregard.
The RCVS denies that there has been any change to their position and yet repeatedly states that only treatments backed by sound, scientific evidence can be given. Although their statement is clearly biased towards making this relevant to CAM and homeopathy in particular, it is logical that this evidence requirement should apply to all treatments. Yet we know that many treatments offered by conventional vets have not been backed up with specific research on their application to a broad spectrum of species, but vets are able to choose to use such treatments without fear of censure from the RCVS. The RCVS has placed the onus on the vet to provide the evidence to support his/her use of an alternative treatment. The RCVS do not see their role as researchers which may go some way to explain why they did not examine homeopathy and other CAM adequately when considering their latest position statement. The implications of publishing the statement without engaging with all relevant stakeholders and gathering all the evidence in support of these treatments is consequently jeopardising animal welfare and compromising the position of their holistic veterinary colleagues.
What is particularly significant and disturbing is the fact that the RCVS report was based on flawed studies. These are outlined below and shown in more depth here.
Science & Technology Committee EC2 Report, 2010
The Lancet Report, Shang et al., 2005
NHMRC, The Australian Report, 2013
EASAC Statement on Homeopathy, 2017
Given all the post publication stakeholder responses to the statement and CAM4animals findings -particularly the flawed reports and the influence of non-veterinary organisations which promote science scepticism – everyone should be gravely concerned about how these documents were used as the ‘evidence’ on which the RCVS Council decided to change a well-balanced and long held policy statement.
In addition, I feel there is a vast amount of confusion around homeopathy as evidenced by the chaotic analysis of a study which concluded that homeopathy only appears to work because of ‘perceptual errors’: (RCVS: 2017) which stated (my emphasis):
“Therefore, animals with conditions that could be treated by an approved veterinary medicine are going without effective treatments in favour of ineffective homeopathic products. Furthermore, not all homeopathic products are neutral in their effect and are sometimes administered in highly concentrated forms that can potentially harm patients. Although homeopaths report that their remedies are effective when used in their practice, efficacy beyond placebo is not apparent in well-controlled clinical trials that eliminate biases and other non-specific effects.”
I am seriously not sure how homeopathy can be referred to as “placebo” and “ineffective” and then, in complete contrast, “all homeopathic products are not neutral in their effect and sometimes administered in highly concentrated forms that can potentially harm patients” in the same paragraph. This nonsensical account of homeopathy goes to show the ignorance with which it is frequently faced. There is a knock-on and compounding effect with one poorly written paper being incorporated into the next and so on. Furthermore, there is a frequent lack of understanding by critics of this very complex therapy which requires much in-depth study and practice.
The Austrian model – one to take on board
Detractors: social media and sceptic organisations
This had a mere 3,335 supporters. In contrast, the petition adopted by CAM4animals has almost 22,000 supporters, including animal owners, farmers, vets and CAM practitioners. From 2016 – 2017, The Good Thinking Society promoted Mr Chambers’ view on homeopathy and his position onto the RCVS Council. He worked with the now President of the RCVS to release the statement on CAM in November 2017. This situation, with reference to CAM detractors and their negative effect on veterinary practice as a whole, will be covered in more depth in my next blog in this series for CAM4animals.
The British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons (BAHVS) in response to Mr Chambers’ petition issued a statement.
“The whole premise of this campaign is based on the blatant misrepresentation that homeopathic medicines are ‘only water’. This is plainly not true. A global initiative of over 100 researchers from a multiplicity of disciplines (GIRI- Groupe International de Recherche sur l’Infenitésimal: http://giri-society.org/ ) has been studying solutions described as ‘ultra-dilutionse’ for 30 years. They have observed unequivocal evidence of their bioactivity. PubMed alone contains more than 100 papers. Recently, researchers have proven existence of nanoparticles in such solutions.” Since this response was made, considerable developments have been made in relation to such cutting-edge science, see here: (Salter, C: Dec 2018).
Once again, the very fact the petition by Danny Chambers exists, shows how little research these uninformed and sceptical disparagers have done. Chambers stated after the RCVS published its statement, ‘‘I recognise that the majority of veterinary homeopaths are acting with the best of intentions, but unfortunately being well-intentioned but deluded is no substitute for being right, especially when the consequences could lead to unnecessary suffering and even death.’ (Chambers, D, cited by Fearon, R: BMJ.)
When you consider iatrogenic disease (adverse effects of drugs), this statement is not only erroneous in the light of the evidence above, but also short sighted and almost laughable; the irony does not escape me. As with all vets, no homeopathic/holistic vet would intentionally harm an animal. They would simply choose the best method of treatment out of the many options available to them, giving them a greater choice than those limited to one approach – an approach which may come with a host of potential problems and adverse effects.
As was pointed out by the Veterinary Record, “A spokesman for the BAHVS said the (RCVS) council had been ‘seduced’ into a ‘precedent setting restriction on the clinical freedoms the profession has always enjoyed.” The RCVS was now in a position where it could be accused of “putting profits before probity” and “corporations before conscience”, said the spokesman (No evidence for homeopathy, says RCVS, 2017 (Fearon, R. BMJ,: no date)
It is important to note that these claims of suffering and poor practice by anti-CAM campaigners are widely bandied about, but in fact no cases of poor practice by CAM practitioners have actually been brought to the RCVS. All vets are bound by Codes of Professional Conduct. If cases of poor veterinary practice – whether through conventional treatments, lack of treatment, maltreatment or even, in the highly unlikely event, by CAM treatments – are identified, then vets or their clients should bring these to the attention of the RCVS and let them be addressed by their disciplinary procedure.
Peter Gregory, veterinary dean of the Faculty of Homeopathy, said: “This drives a coach and horses through the Royal College’s reasoning for adopting its anti-homeopathy stance. The argument that homeopathy endangers animal health is spurious, unsubstantiated and wrong.” He continued: “Growing numbers of pet owners and farmers are seeking a more holistic approach to animal health and have found homeopathy can help to achieve this. In light of the Secretary of State’s statement, I call on the Royal College to look again at its position on the use of complementary medicines in veterinary practice.” . Thus, the division of opinion is still evident, and all are looking for justice to be done, for the sake of the animals and those treating them.
The way forward
By implementing the above, I feel all the RCVS objectives would be achieved. We would be putting the animal first by enabling a wider range of treatments to be available at the discretion of a qualified vet.
The statement from the RCVS, to make conventional medicine the first line of treatment, has been critically analysed here and contested. However, it is appropriate to re-iterate this article does not seek to dismiss conventional treatments as first line or emergency treatment options.
In summing up, I suggest that there should be an overall recognition of the benefits of alternative medicine and that it should be integrated into general veterinary care to be used as first line treatment where appropriate. In addition to homeopathy, this includes chiropractic treatment, osteopathy, acupuncture, herbs, massage and other therapies which have been proven to be effective both empirically and in controlled trials. As shown here, all these therapies are currently seen as complementary under the new RCVS statement and cannot be used in the first instance.
I would strongly suggest that observation and judgment must always take precedence over statistical analysis alone, and that the benchmark for so called standards is changed to include those which have already been proven to be effective.
Clinical evidence in the form of numerous studies, RCTs, Real World Trials and those documented empirically, has been referenced within this article. These demonstrate that the homeopathic approach improves the health of animals and successfully treats a wide range of clinical conditions in veterinary medicine beyond the placebo effect.
In delving further into the RCVS statement and its supporting evidence, there has clearly been little attempt to present a balanced, unbiased view of CAM. The RCVS Council avoided communication with the College’s own CAM qualified members. It ignored positive studies in homeopathy and totally excluded consideration of all other forms of holistic modalities. Instead, to the detriment of animal welfare, they chose to lean on the side of denialism.
If you haven’t already done so, please sign the CAM4animals charter
Other homeopathic veterinary research sites
Author Archives: admin
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE DEPARTMENT BACKS DOWN ON CLAIM AMID CRITICISM
THE DEPARTMENT of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine has backtracked from its claim that its homeopathic formula is highly effective for dengue-fever protection.
“It’s just a supplementary measure that needs further research,” Dr Sun-pong Ritthiruksa said yesterday in his capacity as the chair of the department’s centre for herbal medicine, Thai traditional medicine, folk medicine and alternative medicine.
He spoke up after several prominent figures, including Chulalongkorn University’s lecturer Jessada Denduangboripant, raised questions about the claim.
Sunpong himself said last Friday that a homeopathic formula made from eupatorium perfoliatum 200C had been proved effective in preventing dengue fever. His agency is now handing out it for free.
“It’s 89.9 per cent effective,” Sunpong said last Friday, just a day ahead of Asean Dengue Day, as he cited findings from a journal.
Jessada then quickly argued that homeopathy was pseudoscience, something that the Public Health Ministry should not promote.
“The promotion can be dangerous,” he warned.
Dengue fever has hit more than 28,000 people in Thailand so far this year – up by 1.7 times from the same period a year earlier. Of them, 43 died.
Sunpong said he sought to support the use of homeopathy as a supplementary measure for protection against dengue fever.
He reiterated that to prevent dengue-fever infections, people still needed to focus on measures such as changing the water in flower vases weekly, keeping their home tidy, eliminating mosquito-breeding grounds and covering water containers.
Mosquitoes are the main carriers of dengue fever.
“I am worried that people may misunderstand what I said earlier,” Sunpong said.
He then clarified that eupatorium perfoliatum 200C was not for treating dengue fever.
“If patients develop symptoms that can be associated with dengue fever, [they should] go see a doctor to get treatment based on modern medicine,” he said.
Jessada said he had looked into several studies previously associated with the department and saw multiple flaws.
According to him, the efficacy rate cited for vaccines against dengue fever is not as high as the rate found by the department’s research, hinting at the possibility that the cited efficacy rate for eupatorium perfoliatum 200C might have been exaggerated.
Jessada explained that while eupatorium perfoliatum could reduce fever and boost the immune system, there was no clear proof that it could treat or prevent dengue fever.
According to the Disease Control Department, the main factors associated with fatal cases of dengue fever are living in communities hosting a large number of mosquito larvae, buying medicine for self-treatment, delays in seeking treatments from doctors, and having underlying illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and asthma.
Statistics compiled by the Disease Control Department show the number of dengue-fever patients this year is far higher than the number five years ago.
As of June 11 this year, dengue fever hit 28,785 people in Thailand. During the same period in 2014, the number stood at 10,670. The figures from the same period from 2015 to 2018 were at 24,248, 19,029, 13,961m and 17,302 respectively.
I have read the method in all the books published by Sankaran so far as also attended his seminars. It is the very enchanting video presentations at the seminars and the captivating material presented in his books that prompted me to use it side by side with the age-old traditional Hahnemannian method for some time. I concluded after a thorough study that the theoretical basis on which this entire method is based is flawed.
Unfortunately, we have not evolved benchmarks to judge any method being propagated as homoeopathy and as a first step, we should do it.
The very basis on which Hahnemann founded homoeopathy was his discovery :
1. that any medicinal substance is capable of inducing a field force to distort the vital force of healthy human beings; the nature of distortion presents a recognizable field pattern and it is as true as the law of gravity or any other natural laws.
2. that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes a similar distortion of vital force in a human being.
The SIMILARITY of the distorted picture or pattern of the vital force induced by the medicinal substance in a healthy human being and that created by the natural disease is essential for curative action to occur.
If Sankaran can prove that the vital sensation can be induced by a medicinal substance in healthy human beings and then prove the correspondences of this artificially induced vital sensation to the one present in the cured patient – then and then only it qualifies to be a homoeopathic method.
I hate to waste any more time discussing this method of madness, an aberration of an otherwise super genius whose convoluted thinking process reflects of a major portion of his brain cells gone awry….alas…
A 2-day event covering 27th to 28th June 2019.
The price will be 13000 Baht (U.S.$400.)
We do not differentiate between medically qualified homoeopaths and lay homoeopaths. All are welcome.
Contact Dr Krit for your place on 029829922, 0814982618. LINE:acantus, Email:firstname.lastname@example.org
It will be a concentrated study of examining case taking and evaluation of symptoms collected in aphorism § 6 Sixth Edition:
The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.
Many practitioners prescribe on the totality of these symptoms and fail to apply aphorism § 153 Sixth Edition:
In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.
We can see from 153 that reflection and finding the nucleus of the complete disease picture is required. The question is where and how?
There are a number of different evaluation steps to obtain a correct homoeopathic prescribing symptom, and once found, gives surety of being a characteristic symptom of both the disease and the remedy. We will demonstrate this via a lot of cases and explanations.
We will also show how to take cases via live presentations.
This seminar will give the chance for Thai Homoeopaths to be evaluated for inclusion in the I.H.M. Register of approved practitioners. Each practitioner on the list has been taught by an I.H.M. official via training in our head office in Spain or by evaluation of their abilities
We have the First Thai practitioner to go on the Register. She has attended several seminars and has shown us her adherence to Hahnemannian principles. Her name will be added to the list in due course.
ccess to the resources of the I.H.M. for information and patient advice at all times.
The I.H.M. are the developers of the SYNOPSIS homoeopathic repertory program with the inclusion of the Therapeutic Pocket Book updated and revised 1846 edition of Boenninghausens work. In practice, This has proved to be the most reliable indicator for the most suitable medicine. It took Vladimir Polony and Gary Weaver several years to compile and update.
There is a better than even chance that if you ask someone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or your family physician who first discovered the poliovirus and when they did it, they would have a hard time coming up with the right answer. The answer, by the way, is Karl Landsteiner, MD and Erwin Popper, MD of Austria in 1908.
At the same time, it is unlikely many at the CDC, WHO or most medical doctors would be able to tell you the name of the person who came up with the theory of “herd immunity,” which serves as the foundational basis for justifying mandatory vaccination campaigns. The name of that person is Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, Illinois. He observed that, “during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68 percent of the children contracted the virus.
Later in the 1930s, Hedrich observed that after 55 percent of the child population in Baltimore, MD contracted measles the rest of the city’s population appeared to be immune to the disease. It was these observations that led to the formulation of the herd immunity theory. But note that the theory was based on unvaccinated populations that were exposed to the disease and developed natural immunity to it. The protection came from the fact that each population was exposed to the disease and a certain percentage of the people got it.
The original theory of herd immunity had nothing to do with vaccination. The first mass vaccination campaigns for polio and measles in the United States, for example, did not occur until 1954-1955 and 1963 respectively. That’s three decades after Hedrich constructed his theory. The underlying assumption of the theory was that a community as a whole would develop a certain degree of natural protection from an infectious disease after a portion of its members actually came down with the disease, recovered from it, and became immune to it.
In other words:
The more members of the herd (community) who were exposed to an infectious disease and developed natural immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).7
Somewhere along the line between the 1930s and 1950s the theory of herd immunity was corrupted and resurrected as:
The more members of a herd (community) who were vaccinated against an infectious disease and developed immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).
Notice the clever sleight of hand there. Suddenly, the importance of exposure to an infectious disease was eliminated and replaced with vaccination, and the importance of natural immunity was diminished. That’s a problem because both of those elements are key to Hedrich’s theory. Hedrich was not thinking about a vaccinated community or vaccine-induced—“temporary”—artificial immunity when he thought up his theory. He was thinking about the process of how a disease works its way through a community and how that community, eventually, naturally builds up a resistance to it as a result.
Dr Hedrich would not recognize his theory today. He would likely be the first to speak up and say, “Uh, no, that’s not at all what I had in mind. You missed the central point.”
Just about anyone with the equivalent of a high school education can answer the question, “Who developed the theory of relativity.” Einstein, of course. The theory is central to the science of physics. Although some have tried to question it, no scientist or professor of physics of any note would dare try to misrepresent or redefine it.
Yet, ask any public health official or health care professional involved in giving vaccinations to correctly explain the theory of herd immunity and who developed it, many would probably fail on both counts. Why? Because they have not made an honest effort to study the history of the theory. They have erroneously accepted as truth the relatively new myth promoted by public health officials around the world that herd immunity can only be attained through a highly vaccinated population and that every unvaccinated individual threatens the health of and weakens the herd.
Hedrich’s theory of herd immunity has been twisted by the myth that vaccine-acquired artificial immunity is identical to naturally acquired immunity, which is false. That myth serves to perpetuate the idea that only strict enforcement of mandatory vaccination laws will protect society from disease, which is also false. https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/06/the-theory-of-herd-immunity-has-nothing-to-do-with-vaccination-2/
I have long rationalised that vaccines can cause diseases, by virtue of live or dead cultures in the bloodstream. It is rational to expect that if a disease-producing substance is present… then it can and will produce the relevant disease.vaccine induced illness
An I.H.M. case taking seminar is focused on two things.
#1 Examining the directives of Hahnemann.
#Putting them into practice with the patient.
In the 21st century, Homoeopathy as a therapy has moved away from its scientifically rooted origins, and turned into a quasi-psychological/spiritual practice. The benefits of homoeopathy have been reduced by an incorrect application of the methodology in the clinic and thus a high success rate is negated.
It is our experience that the key to a successful practice is the act of following Hahnemann’s directions precisely in ascertaining the symptoms of the disease, to match with the requisite substance that can produce a curative reaction. It is that simple and that difficult.
In the first tentative moments of using homoeopathy, for example, Arnica for bruising, we were amazed at the results, most of us thought the application of applying a remedy for a condition was so simple and truly effective, and as we applied other remedies for other acute conditions, our faith grew in the system.
Then when we entered medical school or an establishment for teaching, we found that the approach we started with suddenly became a little more difficult for chronic cases, and a Kentian overlay on Hahnemann’s directions, introduced a religious/philosophical element regarding life and viewpoints of disease.
The I.H.M. directors, beginning in 1986, with a background in Kentian homoeopathy, decided to devote time to research, and as such delved deep into the archives of history and collated the original teaching of Hahnemann, and weighed everything that is ‘accepted’ in our therapy against Hahnemanns own words and examples to see if we strayed off the path, or indeed if we missed some key points in practice.
The teachers at the I.H.M., Antonio, Manuel, Guillermo, Vera, Arden, all are independent practitioners with their own practice and teaching faculties. Yet we all share the same core research and information distribution in individual ways. (About us)
On June 20th to the 23rd, there will be a four day special seminar aimed specifically at advanced students and practitioners. This seminar will examine the basis of case taking according to Hahnemann, and how to follow his methodology exactly, and in the process removing all the incorrect additions that have been added over the years from practitioners of his time until today.
We will cover the following.
- Rationale and reasoning on Aphorisms §5 and §6. Eliminating the common mistakes that lose the case understanding.
- Utilising the instruction of §153 with the completed case taken with §6 directions.
- What is a prescribing symptom?
- What to ignore in a case taking and why.
- Do we treat the man or the disease?
- Examining the theory of Miasms in the light of modern disease knowledge, and how useful are miasms in prescribing?
- How to obtain the necessary information accurately to formulate a prescription in the shortest time possible.
- The importance of using only well proved remedies.
- How to read a remedy.
- Are there keynotes in a remedy?
- Which repertory to use?
- How to use a repertory properly.
- Case management.
- Potency and how to give a remedy.
- Repetition of remedies.
- And much more. Much more includes questions like, how important is Herings law of cure? I’ve never seen it… How long can I keep a person on a remedy? Dry dosing vs water dosing. Why do my patients aggravate all the time? Should I use LM’s? Are they good?
- We will be examining remedy action through cases, live and paper.
The next international Seminar will be held at:
The Acantus Wellness Centre, หมู่ที่ 3 59/323/1 ซอยแจ้งวัฒนะ-ปากเกร็ด 29 Chaeng Watthana Rd, Pak Kret District, Nonthaburi 11120, Bangkok Thailand.
Email: email@example.com Tel: 02-9829922, 081-4982618 Line ID: Acantus
On the 20th-23rd June 2019.
Flights from Europe start at £380. Hotel accommodation is cheap, Food is very cheap.
We look forward to seeing you there.
says Roger Daltrey, lead singer of The Who
In May, 2008, 64 year old Roger Daltrey – lead singer from rock band The Who– told The Times newspaper in England how homeopathy had saved his infant son from life threatening gastro-intestinal problems.
“I had a very, very dramatic experience with my son when he was nine months old. He had gastro difficulties, started throwing up, could not keep any food down and turned into skin and bone. At the hospital, they did every test to him, and in the end they just handed him back to me. My wife and I were in bits. My poor baby. The kid was dying. It was terrifying.”
Having heard of homeopathy, Roger searched the Yellow Pages and consulted a local homeopath who prescribed a remedy for his son. Roger then described how within two days his son began to show improvement, and, “Within two weeks he was putting weight on, keeping the food down. The trouble recurred periodically for a couple of years, but he’s now 27, a fit and healthy young man.”
“The bizarre thing is that I’ve got a chiropractor friend in LA whose baby landed up in exactly the same state. He thought he was about to lose him. But I recommended homoeopathic remedies, and he recovered too. That’s God’s honest truth. Now I bet doctors would say, ‘Oh, they’d have got better anyway’. But I can’t believe that.”
Whilst a guest speaker in May, 2009, at The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, First Annual Conference, held in London, Daltrey once again spoke about how distressing his son’s illness had been and the relief that came with homeopathic treatment.
Daltrey praised Prince Charles’ work as a supporter of complementary health therapies, and encouraged him to continue despite those who attempted to demean and detract from his efforts. He jokingly advised: “Don’t let the b*****ds grind you down!”
Roger Daltrey is among a long and distinguished list of musicians and singers who have spoken positively about homeopathy, from Beethoven, Chopin, and Schumann to the more recent Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ravi Shankar, Jon Faddis, Dizzy Gillespie, Shirley Verrett, Pete Townshend, Bob Weir, Paul Rodgers, Annie Lennox, Cher, Tina Turner and Axl Rose.
v. Considering the innumerable surprising cures wrought through Homœopathy, in both acute and chronic diseases, this method of healing would doubtless find many more disciples in the medical world if its practices were not subject to some difficulties far from trifling. It is not only a time-absorbing, but also a troublesome business, to investigate carefully into all the characteristic features and peculiarities, and to gain perfect information concerning the present state of mind of the patient in every individual case of sickness, whether belonging to an epidemic or to the diseases sufficiently designated by name; and then the choice of a suitable remedy, on the principle of similars, according to its pure action, offers again new difficulties, and we are often entangled in such a mass of difficulties that it is not surprising if the less experienced homœopath, not to speak of the beginner in this method of healing, is not able to extricate himself. Without doubt, on this account, and also on account of the unsuitable selection of the remedy which frequently follows therefrom, is to be seen the reason why the latter does not accomplish the desired result. Every beginner will probably at times have seen, what in the case of experienced and observant homœopaths is recurring more and more rarely, that, even with very careful selection and apparent adaptability of the remedies, success does not always come up to the expectations, and at times no action at all or even an aggravation of the patient’s troubles ensues. In such cases we may safely depend upon it, either that the remedy given has been formerly misused in allopathic doses and on that account its symptoms have become habitual and very manifest, or that, on account of the oversight of one or more symptoms of the disease which would contra-indicate the remedy, its choice was a mistake and therefore without effect. In the former case there will be, as a rule, an increase in the patient’s sufferings, in the latter no noticeable
vi. change will be observed; in the former case there must then be made an attempt to destroy the old drug disease by homœopathically selected antidotes, and in the latter case by a careful examination of the disease image, and by a circumspect selection of the remedy, the previous mistake should be rectified. It would betray a great want of logical sequence and would denote a contradiction in itself if one, from such experiences, were to form conclusions concerning the unreliability of the homœopathic foundation principle (similia similibus). For apart from the fact that almost everyone has ultimately had the opportunity to convince himself of one or the other of the above-named causes, there would still remain to be explained away the much more frequent cases in which such rapid and lasting cures are accomplished that they frequently surpass the expectations even of the physician himself. One would be obliged to set up the contention that there existed in nature no sound therapeutic principle, a contention which probably nobody would like to defend.
Accordingly we would expect that to all physicians, honestly seeking after the truth, every labour, be it ever so trifling, must be welcome, if it serves to advance this (as the honorable Hufelandterms it) “solely direct curative method,” namely, the homœopathic, and assists in the selection of the proper remedy. The compiler of the following tables has not hesitated therefore to consent to the many requests of homœopathic physicians, and even the urgent demand of the worthy founder of this science of cure, to make them known through the press, after having been kindly revised by Hofrath Hahnemann, and after making some changes and improvements on the form in which they had already been communicated in manuscript to the nearest homœopathic friends. Without laying a great value upon the work, which contains no more than a tabulation of that which is already known, it is intended to afford an easier comprehensive survey of some peculiarities of the remedies which have hitherto been proved on healthy persons, and to facilitate the work of those homœopaths who recognize the great importance of such a compilation. We need scarcely be reminded that in several reme-
vii. dies, and especially those only partially and imperfectly proved, many uncertainties exist, and doubtless mistakes have occurred which only by further proving can be discovered and corrected. In the meantime only that could be used which we possessed, for Homœopathy never allows of hypotheses and suppositions, and never borrows from the realm of opinions, but understands the art of securing out of the realm of reality the pure truth.
The similarity which must exist between the natural disease and the pure effects of the homœopathic remedy, in order that the latter may be able to eradicate the former, must be complete in every respect. It is, therefore, not sufficient to have found a remedy which is able to excite similar sufferings to those about which the patient complains, and much less if this similarity be confined merely to general names (such as headache, toothache, bowel complaint, cramps and so forth), as some very ignorant persons indeed are not ashamed to falsely attribute to Homœopathy. If the selected remedy is to prove reliable and successful, its pure effects must be adapted to the entire group of symptoms present, the conception of the totality of the disease symptoms, and, therefore, not only the sensations and pains, but also the aggravation and amelioration of the symptoms according to time and circumstances and the mental condition of the patient must correspond to all these in the remedy with the greatest possible similarity. Only when the totality of the symptoms has been obtained with completeness and exactness and when among the proved remedies one is found which corresponds to the whole in similarity, or at least is in no way contra-indicated, may we be sure of the desired success, provided that the remedy has not been already misused in massive doses, and that now only so much is given, as, according to experience, is sufficient to accomplish the object.
Those who are already acquainted with Homœopathy and have seen its wonderful effects in diseases of the most diverse kind need, in order to appreciate the preceding, only think of the
viii peculiarites of the Küchenschelle (Anemone pulsatilla) and the Brechnuss (Strychnos nux vomica), the knowledge of which we must attribute to the immortal founder of the art. Out of the numerous symptoms of these two excellently proved polycrests a great number of disease images may be formed, corresponding as strongly to the one as to the other. Even that which we know as especially characteristic of both is nowhere so sharply demarcated as to prevent many symptoms from manifesting quite a similarity or even contradicting each other. If then without reference to the predominating peculiarities of each remedy a selection is made, it may not infrequently happen that the improper remedy is chosen, because according to a few fragmentary symptoms it seems to correspond more nearly to the present case of sickness. The mistake lies, not in the principle of the homœopathic method nor even in the manner of selection itself, but in beginning with an insufficient conception of the totality of the symptoms of the disease and the totality of the symptoms of the remedy. The Küchenschelle (Pulsatilla) has not a few symptoms in the morning, in the open air, and while moving, just as the Krähenaugen (Nux vom.) has several in the evening, in the room and during the rest of the body
. If we then confine ourselves, unintentionally, only to these symptoms, we will find that we have selected an unsuitable remedy and cannot, therefore, see the hoped-for success. It is consequently of the utmost importance to become thoroughly acquainted with the characteristics and peculiarities of every remedy, and especially of the antipsorics. All of these possess the power to eradicate the sad conseqences of one and the same miasmatic evil foundation, and have, therefore, for the most part the same sphere of action, and there is between them a very great similarity in their effects. Notwithstanding each of them has its own peculiarities, just as the other medicines have, and never can one be used instead of another with the same favorable results. In the most surprising manner was this shown during the present year in the frequent intermittent fevers, which were for the greatest part apparently of a psoric nature, and could, therefore, in most cases be permanently and safely cured only by antipsoric remedies  Nearly
ix all the antipsorics known up to the present time were then used, according to the similarity of their symptoms, without the possibility of giving a preference to one over the other, and, when a proper selection was made, especially based upon the symptoms occurring during the apyrexia, their great curative power demonstrated itself not only by the rapid disappearance of the fever and other symptoms of the disease, but also by the fact that every patient was cured, and of all those homœopathically cured not a single one suffered a relapse, a condition which most generally prevailed after the allopathic use of Peruvian bark.
Of course to obtain a complete characteristic picture of the remedies, with the elimination of every uncertainty and half truth among the pure effects of the same, when it is often so very difficult to distinguish the primary effects from the after effects, can only be the result of united efforts and mutual communications, and, without a separate homœopathic hospital under the protection of the state, in which nothing but true facts may be gleaned and confirmed, the science can only progress slowly. But until the time that the young science, which is even now rendering such great results, will see its most fervent wishes fulfilled, its disciples must not sit idle, but everyone is under obligation to contribute according to his abilities to its upbuilding, so that suffering humanity may become a partaker so much the sooner of the blessings of those discoveries which have already proven curative in manifold ways, and which promise immensely more.
The following three tables contain a comparative survey of the action of all remedies, up to this time, proved with a certain degree
x of perfection on healthy persons, according to the time of day, the position and circumstances and according to the conditions of mind excited by them. In all three the order of their rank is denoted by the first five letters of the alphabet, so that the letter a designates the most decided, predominating and manifest action, having nothing contradicting it; the letter cindicates that the remedy has an equal action with reversed time or circumstances, and the letter ethe last or most subordinate place. The letters b and ddenote the intermediate state, so that b approaches to the highest rank and dto the lowest. When no letter is given, it signifies that nothing has been found in the pure effects pertaining to that modality. This arrangement of the different degrees of value appeared to the author the most serviceable and comprehensive, and the number of the same entirely sufficient to denote the degrees properly.
The compilation of the first table, which contains the aggravation or amelioration of the suflerings according to the time of day, gave us the most trouble, because the divisions of the day are not capable of being sharply defined and because there is a want of expressions in the general usage of language to define the various terms and limits. Especially is this the case in regard to the morning and the evening, whose limits are not uncommonly extended unreasonably, and then frequently a part of the night as well as fore- and afternoon is included in them. Without doubt, therefore, this table will consequently have to undergo the greatest number of improvements and corrections.
The second table, which contains the action of the medicines in exciting (and aggravating) or ameliorating (and removing) their symptoms according to circumstances, could in the most of instances easily he arranged according to sure and clearly defined data. It was found soon after its compilation, that here, as well as in the first table, not every symptom without distinction could he taken into consideration, but that a selection had to be made among them, with the omission of that part of them which would have given incorrect results. The main rule for this selection was deduced from what the honorable founder of Homceopathy teaches in that connection in the prefaces to Kriihenaugen (Nux vomica), Ki2chensclzelle (Pulsatitla), Zaunrebe (Byronia), and Wurzelsumach (Rh us), compared with the symptoms of the remedies which con-
xi firm. For this reason only the symptoms of the head, eyes, teeth, respiration and chest, limbs, and the general sufferings, night sufferings and fevers, were taken into account in the first two tables, and the other regions were only considered when, either on account of the small number or on account of a want of clearness, doubts remained. It is still necessary to note that under the word “Touch,” the heading of the second column of Table II., are also included scratching, rubbing, pressing, etc , and that the modality “Agg.” expressesboth the excitement [initiation] of a symptom and an aggravation, and by “Amel.” a ceasing as well as amelioration of the sufferings is meant. The rest of these two tables needs no further explanation.
In the third table, which contains a comprehensive view of the various states of mind produced by the remedies, the first five letters of the alphabet have the same meaning as in the two preceding tables. In the rubrics the author has endeavored to observe the most suitable psychological order so as to facilitate comparison thereby as much as possible.
In giving the names of the medicines in alphabetical order the systematic tabulation of Dr. Rückert, which probably no homœopath is without, is followed, excepting that the acids are always classified immediately according to their bases, both to denote their close relationship in therapeutic respects and because the finding of the former seemed thereby to be facilitated.
In view of the use of these tables, it is scarcely necessary to remark that they are in nowise intended to introduce a generalizing method into homœopathic treatment. According to the almost unanimous contention of the most distinguished medical authors and practitioners much mischief has been wrought in allopathy just in this way, and consequently Homœopathy would have cause enough to avoid it even if its entire system did not already consist in the strongest individualization. Therefore, if we wish to proceed conscientiously these tables should only be consulted after the case of sickness has been carefully examined, and has been compared with the competing remedies, and then as it were to solve some still remaining difficulties, or as a test for the correctness of the choice made. The tables can in nowise
xii give the most suitable remedy, but they will assist in the choice of the same and prevent the likelihood of an unsuitable remedy being selected.
A diligent study of the pure effects of the remedies must ever remain the principal thing, but, as the beginner especially needs a “guiding string,” we hope he will not seek it altogether in vain in these tables. One may especially find in them, the author hopes, an aid in becoming more familiar with those medicines which vie with each other for preference in given cases, and especially the antipsorics, and to group them according to the similarity of their effects. …
Finally, with the same intense desire after perfection that is everywhere so plainly seen in all disciples of the homœopathic healing art, it is as much to be expected as to be hoped for that the present effort may be closely examined in its details, be purified of unavoidable mistakes and errors, and thereby acquire the reliability which the subject itself deserves.