Category Archives: Admin Comment

Difficult case clinic.

Spanish and English Speakers. Appointments in person and also by telephone and SKYPE.

El I.H.M. ha establecido una consulta medica en Sevilla.Cada uno de los médicos que trabajan en ella han sido formados en el método Hanemaniano homeopático y en el uso del Repertorio de Boenninghausen para el análisis de los casos clínicos.


The I.H.M. Has established a consulting clinic in Sevilla. Each of the attending physicians is trained in the Hahnemannian method of Homoeopathy and uses the Boenninghausen Repertory for analysis.

Actualmente Gary Weaver reside en Sevilla y es el encargado de la toma del caso junto con Antonio Gil Ortega y Manuel Gutierrez Ontiveros. institutodemedicinahomeopatica.wordpress.com/institute-staff/

Currently, Gary Weaver is resident in Seville for the case taking along with Antonio Gil Ortega and Manuel Gutiérrez Ontiveros.

Igualmente ofrecemos formación clínica para terapeutas que quieran resolver sus casos difíciles, veríamos el paciente en la consulta con la presencia de su terapeuta y le demostraríamos la metodología Hanemaniana en la toma del caso y su posterior análisis.

We also offer clinical training for practitioners for their own difficult cases. We will see the patient in the clinic with the practitioner present and demonstrate the Hahnemannian methodology in the casetaking and afterwards in the analysis.

Nuestra consulta se encuentra en la Barriada los Príncipes Parcela 7 Bloque 8 Sevilla.

Por favor llamen por teléfono 606 207 345 a Manuel Gutierrez para concertar cita.

We have the clinic at Barriada los Principes Parcela 7 Bloque 8 Sevilla. Please phone Manuel on 606 20 73 45 to book your appointment or alternatively you can e-mail us below:

Email: education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

The most common reason a prescription fails.

After studying the writings of Hahnemann for over 30 years, I am more than convinced that he was very clear as to the procedure for taking a case, and what symptoms are required to be used for prescribing symptoms.

It is no coincidence that practitioners who attend the IHM course, and are shown from the Organon and Chronic Diseases the instructions, and are presented with MANY case examples and discussions regarding each case, manage to go back to their homes and revisit difficult cases and have success. Not because the IHM have a modern conception and methodology but  simply because we work in the Hahnemannian manner.

The IHM decided many years ago to bypass all the practitioners of the era who offered explanations as to what Hahnemann was saying, and just take Hahnemanns own writings as good enough. By doing this, or members and students and practitioners have avoided the most common mistake made.

Nowhere does Hahnemann state that one symptom has priority or seniority over another.

In aph 6, he instructs to take ONLY symptoms that have changed since or just prior to the disease/infection, of the body and the mind. Here there is NO differentiation of mental or physical changes in terms of rank.

In aph 153, he states: 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.

Again NO differentiation between mental and physical symptoms.

If we be logical about this, Hahnemann is stressing to find altered expressions of disease in the now sick person, WHEREVER they are and WHATEVER they are.

In aph 133 he states: On experiencing any particular sensation from the medicine, it is useful, indeed necessary, in order to determine the exact character of the symptom, to assume various positions while it lasts, and to observe whether, by moving the part affected, by walking in the room or the open air, by standing, sitting or lying the symptom is increased, diminished or removed, and whether it returns on again assuming the position in which it was first observed, – whether it is altered by eating or drinking, or by any other condition, or by speaking, coughing, sneezing or any other action of the body, and at the same time to note at what time of the day or night it usually occurs in the most marked manner, whereby what is peculiar to and characteristic of each symptom will become apparent.

This applies to ANY symptom mental or physical.

Logic also dictates that if a sick person does not have an altered mental change… WE CANNOT USE IT! We do not use personality in our prescription ever,  UNLESS ALTERED.

Many practitioners during the time of Kent and since have been taught that the mental disposition is the key to solving each case.

They Quote aph 211 to support this postulation. This holds good to such an extent, that the state of the disposition of the patient often chiefly determines the selection of the homoeopathic remedy, as being a decidedly characteristic symptom which can least of all remain concealed from the accurately observing physician.

However: a read of the aphorism in conjunction with the topic under discussion from 210 to 230, will show that 211 is the cornerstone of dealing with one sided mental diseases only!

If a practitioner spend his or her time searching for mental or emotional states for the patient, they will miss out on the correct prescribing symptoms.

That is why we defer to original writings only and leave out interpretations so as to not make a mistake.

 

 

Harvard Study Has Good News for Homeopathic Medicine

The American Journal of Public Health has recently published a survey article out of Harvard that shows that homeopathic medicine, while still only used by a small fraction of the U.S. population, has jumped 15% in use. In addition, most users put homeopathy among the top 3 complementary and integrative strategies they use in their health care.
The interest of this journal in this publication is linked to possible public health benefits american-journal-of-public-health-225x300from the use of homeopathic medicine. The principal investigator was Michelle Dossett, MD, PhD and the team also included placebo expert Ted Kaptchuk, OMD. They hail from Harvard’s School of Public Health and from a Harvard Medical School affiliated hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess. The teams notes that prior studies of homeopathy “suggest potential public health benefits such as reductions in unnecessary antibiotic usage, reductions in costs to treat certain respiratory diseases, improvements in peri-menopausal depression, improved health outcomes in chronically ill individuals, and control of a Leptospirosis epidemic in Cuba.”

The data was gleaned from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. The researchers explored the prevalence and use patterns of homeopathic medicines among U.S. adults in relation to other complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use. Versions of this survey in 2002 and 2007 found use of homeopathic medicines at 1.7% and 1.8% of the adult population, respectively. The 15% growth in the recent half-decade corresponds to an overall use rate of 2.1% in 2012. The most common conditions for which people sought homeopathic treatment were respiratory and ear-nose-and-throat complaints as well as musculoskeletal pain syndromes. Users tended to be more educated than non-users.

Use of homeopathy in the US is lower than in many European countries. The authors note, for instance, that surveys have found rates at 8.2% in Italy and nearly 15% in Germany. A recent Italian wire-service story reported findings of a 2012 survey by a homeopathic manufacturer that found much higher use, at close to one-in-six adult Italians.

The Harvard team reported that positive views of homeopathy were much higher among those who saw a professional homeopath compared to those who simply purchased the pills from the store and self-prescribed. Those who consulted professionals were more likely to feel that homeopathy was “very important in maintaining health and well-being.” The sense of the importance of the remedies was also stronger. More of those who’d consulted a homeopathic practitioner thought that homeopathy helped their health condition “a great deal” than did the self-prescribers.

Naysayers, who believe these medicine are nothing more than placebos, will likely question the additional perceived value post practitioner visit. Is it anything more than the greater level of investment in a placebo one has if the placebo is practitioner-recommended rather than self-prescribed?

dana-ullman-mph-cchThe article came to The Integrator from homeopath and author Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH (pictured). He sent notice of the Harvard publication and of the recent report on Italian use with this note: “Here’s some GOOD news about homeopathy!”

Ullman adds: “This survey confirms that a certain well-educated and well-satisfied group of Americans benefit from self-prescribing homeopathic medicines as well as from going to professional homeopaths. Although these numbers are much higher in select countries in Europe, it is more than reasonable to support individual choice in health care. Just as our country is a melting pot of different cultures and races, our health and medical care likewise needs this healthy diversity.”

Homeopathy has taken it on the chin the last two years. The Harvard study was published amidst a renewed flare up of bad publicity following a controversial 2015 report from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The chair of the report, general practitioner Paul Glasziou, MD blogged on the controversial findings at the British Medical Journal. A wave of postings from anti-homeopathy writers, such as this, immediately followed.

Weighing the public health potential of homeopathic medicine requires a wading into a river of twin ambiguities. These can each be true simultaneously: 1) homeopathic treatment only has value as a placebo, and 2) expanded use of these medicines can be useful tools in the public health campaign against antibiotic overuse. This 2008 study, for instance, found that 13% of doctors use antibiotics as placebos. Mightn’t we have been better off, from a population health perspective, had they prescribed homeopathic remedies and not delivered this extra load of antibiotics onto the terrain?

French researchers spoke to this potential last year when they concluded that “management of patients by homeopathic GPs may be less expensive from a global perspective and may represent an important interest to public health.” The Harvard researchers included a similar note: “Because of potential public health benefits associated with the use of homeopathy, further research on this modality and targeted studies of users are warranted.”

https://www.integrativepractitioner.com/whats-new/news-and-commentary/harvard-study-has-good-news-for-homeopathic-medicine/

Reflections on the seminars of Dr. Gary Weaver in Seville

Reflections on the seminars of Dr. Gary Weaver in Seville on the methodology of Hahnemann and Boenninghausen

January 26th 2016

At the beginning of December of last year we had the opportunity here in Seville to receive a course of clinic with Dr. Gary Weaver, whom we already knew for having given months before a course in Seville on the methodology of work of Boenninghausen based on the Work of Hahnemann.

If the first course was very interesting to me, the latter has been for my clarifier how to apply the method in practice with real cases taken from the daily clinic itself.

I, like almost all my fellow homeopaths around here, have been trained in kentiana homeopathy, with all that this entails in terms of taking clinical history, symptom assessment, hierarchizing, and repertorization of the case, and In the ultimate application of “what must be cured” in each particular patient.

The reason for approaching the method of Boenninghausen has been due to a couple of motivations, the first of them, the dissatisfaction in the clinical result of the application of the kentiana vision, without doubt that personally I think I have helped many patients to However, I was not completely satisfied with the results I was getting and I do not think it was because of lack of study and dedication, I felt that there was something that did not fit completely with what Until now he had been practicing; The second motivation, and not least, is the complication of the Kentian method of working at the time of the patient’s clinical approach and the insecure terrain in which we see ourselves when we give the highest hierarchical value to mental symptoms,

The method of Boenninghausen, as Dr. Gary has explained to me, has represented a return to “sanity” within classical homeopathy, a return to the purest Hahnemanian sources, especially nowadays where the New currents called homeopathic remedies are moving away from the true spirit of classical homeopathy by entering into the realms of metaphysics and elucidation rather than the rational medicine itself brought to us by Hahnemann.

The method of Boenninghausen catches my attention for its simplicity, its effectiveness and its coherence with Hahnemannian homeopathy, and the two seminars, one practical and another theoretical one of Dr. Gary, have served me to learn the “a, b, c” Of this new, but old way of doing homeopathy, I recognize that we have a long and arduous way ahead to familiarize ourselves with it, with its way of taking the clinical history, its symptomatological hierarchy, its repertoire, etc., but what is important, And I think it is a feeling, that we share several doctors here, is that we are on the right path, in the way that Hahnemann and his best disciple Boenninghausen developed.

If these personal reflections serve for other homeopathic doctors to enter into this method, I would therefore be satisfied and I encourage from now on that other colleagues “recover” the true rigor in the application of homeopathy following the methodology of work proposed by Boenninghausen. And I also agree that it is fair to recognize Dr. Gary’s work to recover this Hahnemannian homeopathy in a homeopathic world that goes in a diametrically opposed sense, his work I hope will bear fruit in the future of our homeopathy.

Author: Dr. Manuel Gutiérrez Ontiveros. Homeopath Physician.

Course costs. Sliding fee.

One thing that the I.H.M. does for attendees of the courses, is to have a sliding fee depending on numbers. We have fixed costs that have to be met, yet are able to spread the costs over the numbers present for each course. For each course, we have usually 4 members of staff. Gary, Antonio, Manuel and Vera by SKYPE.

For example:

  • 1 participant is €1000 Euros
  • 2 participants is €850 per person.
  • 3 participants is €750 per person.
  • 4 participants is €700 per person.
  • 5 participants is €650 per person
  • 6 participants is €600 per person.

We just count the number of attendees and the cost is divided as per above.

For any GROUP attendances, contact us at education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

We try and help the best we can.

https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/post-graduate-course-in-english-in-seville/

End of prohibition: in Sweden homeopathy is legal

End of prohibition: in Sweden homeopathy is already legal

From now on homeopathy is legal in Sweden. A Supreme Court ruling overturned a sentence condemning a doctor for having used a homeopathic treatment with a patient. To date, the use of homeopathic medicines had been officially banned in Sweden.

In this case, a Swedish doctor has received probation for treating a patient with homeopathic medicines.

Details about the disease and specific treatment were not revealed by the court. The Supreme Court (Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen) of Sweden annulled the decision of the judgment (No. 6634-10).

The judges are convinced that the doctor acted in the interest of the patient and applied the medicine that according to the knowledge of the doctor was more suitable  for the patient.

For the court there was at no time of homeopathic treatment any risk for the patient. Thanks to the new ruling, Swedish doctors and pharmacists can officially take part in homeopathy courses and offer training courses .

The president of the German Association of Homeopathic Physicians ( DZVhÄ ), Cornelia Bajic sees in the decision of the Swedish court a confirmation of the growing acceptance of homeopathy worldwide. “The court’s decision is a milestone,” says Bajic. “Thanks to this ruling, the criminalization of homeopathic doctors in Sweden is over.”

Homeopathy in the world: increasingly recognized

The evolution in Sweden is another indicator that homeopathy is increasingly recognized in the world. Many governments officially recognize homeopathy as medical treatment.

These countries include, for example, Latin America , Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador and Mexico. In Asia the governments of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are included and in Europe , homeopathy is recognized in countries like Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland and Great Britain.

In some of these countries, homeopathy is an integral part of the national health system , as in Brazil, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Great Britain and, after a referendum, also in Switzerland, reports the World Association of Homeopathic Physicians (Medicorum League Homoeopathica Internationalis ” LMHI “), which has members from more than 70 countries . More than half come from countries where homeopathy is recognized.

Last year, the door opened in China for homeopathy. The Kent Repertory, one of the fundamental works of homeopathy, was translated into Mandarin, the most widely spoken language in the world. At the same time, the “National Association of Chinese Homeopathy” was founded.

However, the LMHI and its main member, the DZVhÄ, continue with “global solidarity for persecuted and oppressed homeopathic physicians,” says Bajic.

The LMHI annually organizes the International Homeopathy Day in states where homeopathic physicians can not practice freely. This year the venue was Croatia.

Removing the effects of allopathic medicines.

We teach the fullness of Hahnemanns instructions in our specialist case taking seminars.

§ 76 Sixth Edition

Only for natural diseases has the beneficent Deity granted us, in homoeopathy, the means of affording relief; but those devastations and maimings of the human organism exteriorly and interiorly, effected by years, frequently, of the unsparing exercise of a false art, with its hurtful drugs and treatment, must be remedied by the vital force itself (appropriate aid being given for the eradication of any chronic miasm that may happen to be lurking in the background), if it has not already been too much weakened by such mischievous acts, and can devote several years to this huge operation undisturbed. A human healing art, for the restoration to the normal state of those innumerable abnormal conditions so often produced by the allopathic non-healing art, there is not and cannot be.

Too often the physician finds a patient before him that has been plyed with numerous drugs in the treatment of  their affection. How much can homoeopathy do in a situation like this?

stressed_tired_drHahnemann points out that in his experience, if the energy of the patient has not been completely depleted by drugs, it will be by the sole action of the immune system/Vital force that can restore health. Accessory help can be given by looking at the primary miasm/infection and helping to remove that, but primarily it is only the organism that can cure and this can take several years. Sometimes structural changes in the organism occur from the drug action, and the resultant action from the immune system to save life produce incurable or unchangeable situations.

For this reason Hahnemann asserts that Homoeopathy is only really useful in the treatment of NATURAL DISEASES and that these acute and chronic non miasmatic iatrogenic drug diseases are almost impossible to treat successfully.

I have sadly turned away several patients with drug induced disease states that did not respond to treatment on this basis.

The training courses in case taking.

So why do we offer specialist courses on case taking?  Anybody in homeopathic practice that has been taking patients cases for the longest time, or even for new practitioners, there is a problem with understanding what is essential to prescribe for in the symptoms.

For those that have been through the Kentian school of homeopathic learning, that is emphasis placed on the mental and emotional symptoms above the pure clinical symptoms the are present and belong to the disease state. Until a practitioner fully understands the difference between aphorism  5 and 6 and 153 the results in the clinic will be less than ideal.

The IHM has spent over 30 years in research and training in homeopathy using the principles Hahnemann clearly enunciated for us to use. The three-day training course is to focus the practitioner on essentials in the case taking and in the evaluation of the collection of symptoms to find the correct prescribing criteria that is both in the disease and in a remedy that produces that state.

Everybody that has trained with us and applies the principles have seen much success in the clinic. Some of the cases that has being presented to us by practitioners as incurable or unable to help, have resolved quickly by application of the Hahnemannian principles…

The staff of the IHM claim no special abilities personally. We place emphasis on careful case taking, and in the evaluation, a criteria based selection of symptoms that represent the individual expression of disease and can be matched to the curative remedy.

Everything has been stated by Hahnemann in his writings. We just help you to understand it .

 

Why Hahnemann did not repeat medicines when they acted.

Aphorism 245 and 246 of the 5th edition were combined in the 6th edition to make clear the following principle.

§ 246 Sixth Edition
Every perceptibly progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration during treatment is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine whatsoever, because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect is now hastening towards its completion. This is not infrequently the cause in acute diseases, but in more chronic diseases, on the other hand, a single dose of an appropriately selected homoeopathic remedy will at times complete even with but slowly progressive improvement and give the help which such a remedy in such a case can accomplish naturally within 40, 50, 60, 100 days. This is, however, but rarely the case; and besides, it must be a matter of great importance to the physician as well as to the patient that were it possible, this period should be diminished to one-half, one-quarter, and even still less, so that a much more rapid cure might be obtained. And this may be very happily affected, as recent and oft-repeated observations have taught me under the following conditions: firstly, if the medicine selected with the utmost care was perfectly homoeopathic; secondly, if it is highly potentized, dissolved in water and given in proper small dose that experience has taught as the most suitable in definite intervals for the quickest accomplishment of the cure but with the precaution, that the degree of every dose deviate somewhat from the preceding and following in order that the vital principle which is to be altered to a similar medicinal disease be not aroused to untoward reactions and revolt as is always the case1 with unmodified and especially rapidly repeated doses.
1 What I said in the fifth edition of the Organon, in a long note to this paragraph in order to prevent these undesirable reactions of the vital energy, was all the experience I then had justified. But during the last four or five years, however, all these difficulties are wholly solved by my new altered but perfected method. The same carefully selected medicine may now be given daily and for months, if necessary in this way, namely, after the lower degree of potency has been used for one or two weeks in the treatment of chronic disease, advance is made in the same way to higher degrees, (beginning according to the new dynamization method, taught herewith with the use of the lowest degrees).

Hahnemann first says that any noticeably progressing and strikingly increasing improvement during treatment excludes the repetition of the remedy because the cure is already hastening to take place.

This means that any time a single dose, or a series of doses, causes a strikingly progressive improvement any repetition is counter indicated for the time being. This is because the vital force is moving toward the cure at a maximum rate and any more doses will only slow down the cure.

Then the Founder takes up the subject when a single dose only causes a “slow, continuous improvement” that may take over 50, 60, or 100 days to complete the cure. In these cases the split-dose of the medicinal solution may speed the cure to 1/2,1/4, or less the time it takes the single static dry dose.

This goal may be accomplished under five conditions.

  1. The remedy must be a true homoeopathic simillimum.
  2. The remedy should be administered in medicinal solution.
  3. It must be administered in the smallest of doses.
  4. The medicinal solution should be repeated at suitable intervals.
  5. Each dose should be succussed prior to administering the dose.

This is the basis of Hahnemann’s advanced posology that teaches the practitioner when to wait and watch as well as when to act according to circumstances. This is what Hahnemann called the middle path approach to posology.

Homoeopathy is a system of flexible response in which the methods of adjusting the dose are central to case management.

The LMs act smoothly for their remedial powers considering their potency actions. For this reason, the LMs are far more suitable than the 200c and 1M for a good number of patients.

The large gaps between the 30c, 200c, 1M and 10M Centesimal are too large for many constitutions and chronic conditions. This Kentian system only offers 7 potencies while there are 30 different micro tonal LM potencies.

These individuals usually do very well on the LMs when they are given properly. If they take 200c or 1M (esp. the dry dose) it causes unproductive aggravations and accessory symptoms.

These are some of the differences. The LMs are safe and effective when the potency, succussions, and dose are individualized and the patient is not over-medicated.

 

By carefully reading the 6th Organon and the Paris casebooks much more information has come to light.

This situation is finally starting to change as homoeopaths experienced in the 4th Organon method take up experiments with the revisions introduced in 5th (1833) and 6th editions (1842).

The method of the Organon is an artistic method that must be individualized to the patient. There are no preconceived schedules that can guide one. The daily dose or alternate day dose may be correct for one person while one dose a week, month or year is sufficient in another.

Any time one gives too many doses one sees the side-effects of over medication. What a homoeopath learns is when to wait and watch as well as when to act to speed the cure.

Comments by David Little…

It works.

The largest study ever conducted by an official body on homeopathy concludes that homeopathy not only works, but is more economical than conventional medicine.

Dana Ullman

The Swiss Government has a long history of neutrality and perhaps for this reason the reports of this Government on controversial issues should be taken more into account than other reports from countries that are more influenced by current economic and political circumstances.

When it is known that two of the top five drug manufacturing companies are based in Switzerland, you might think that this country has a lot of interest in conventional medicine, but this assumption leads to error.

At the end of 2011, a report was published by the Swiss Government on Homeopathic Medicine, representing the most complete assessment of Homeopathic Medicine published by a Government, and has recently appeared in English ( Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety , Costs, Bornhoft and Matthiessen, Springer ). This report states that homeopathic treatment is effective and cost-effective and should be included within Switzerland’s national health program.

The Swiss government’s investigations into homeopathy and complementary and alternative treatments respond to high demand and widespread use in Switzerland of conventional medicine, not only by consumers, but also by doctors. Approximately half the population of Switzerland uses complementary and alternative medicine treatments and values them. And in addition, about half of the Swiss doctors consider effective complementary and alternative treatments. Perhaps most importantly, 85% of the Swiss population prefer therapies of this type that are part of the national health program.

Since 1998, the Government of Switzerland has decided to expand its national health system including certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine and neural therapy. The reimbursement of the costs of these patients was an interim measure, while the Swiss government commissioned a study to determine whether they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this study, the national health program has again begun to reimburse homeopathic treatments and other alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum, more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of alternative and homeopathic medicines within the national health program (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

Swiss Government: Health Technology Assessment

The assessment of health technologies in homeopathic medicine is by far the largest report ever published by a government. Not only does this report carefully and comprehensively review the randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathic remedies, it has also evaluated its “real-world effectiveness” as well as safety and the relationship between Cost and effectiveness. The report also carries out a comprehensive review of preclinical investigations (physicochemical investigations, botanical studies, animal and in vitro studies with human cells).

And there is more, this report evaluates systematic reviews and meta-analyzes, study results and epidemiological research. This comprehensive review carefully evaluates the studies carried out, both for the quality of its design and for its execution (what is called internal validity) and how it is brought into common homeopathic practice (external validity). The issue of external validity is of great importance because there are scientists and physicians who perform studies on homeopathy and have no knowledge of this type of medication (some studies show that certain homeopathic medicines are used very little for testing, whereas Others use medications that are not indicated for certain patients). When these studies showed that homeopathic medicine did not work, an accurate evaluation indicated that such studies had been designed to refute homeopathy … or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory tests of this nature Are not intended to prove or refute homeopathic medicines, but only to evaluate treatment for a person in a specific situation).

“This report evaluates systematic reviews and meta-analyzes, study results and epidemiological research.”

After basic preclinical research and high-quality studies, the Swiss government’s report states that “high-potency” homeopathic medicines appear to induce regulatory effects (eg, balance or normalization of effects) and specific changes in cells And living organisms. The report also notes that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research prove that homeopathic medicines mark a trend in favor of homeopathy “(Bornhöft, Wolf von Ammon, et al, 2006).

The Swiss report found evidence supporting the homeopathic treatment of respiratory tract infections and respiratory allergies.The report cites 29 studies on “Upper respiratory tract infections and allergic reactions”, 24 of which offer a positive result in favor of homeopathy. In addition, six of the seven controlled studies comparing homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy is more effective than conventional medical interventions (the study found another homeopathic treatment equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All these results of the homeopathic treatment did not carry the common side effects in the conventional pharmacological treatment. When evaluating only randomized placebo-controlled trials, 12 of the 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.

The authors of the Swiss government report acknowledge that part of the overall review of research includes negative reviews of homeopathic clinical research (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of the research has been widely criticized by both advocates and detractors of homeopathy. The report notes that the Shang team does not even adhere to the guidelines of QUORUM, which are widely recognized as standards for scientific information (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then tried to compare them with 110 conventional medical trials. Shan and her team determined 22 high-quality homeopathic studies, against only 9 high-quality studies in the field of conventional medicine. Instead of comparing these high quality trials (which would have given a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team set criteria that ignored most high quality homeopathic studies, thereby supporting their original hypothesis and Established prejudices around which homeopathic medicines are not effective (Lüdtke, Rutten, 2008).

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, a Canadian physician who is considered as one of the pioneers in “evidence-based medicine”, has expressed deep concern to researchers and clinicians as it is considered that only double-blind clinical trials Are the means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this claim, it should be recognized that virtually all surgical procedures are unscientific or untested, because very few have been randomized to double-blind trials.

In my opinion, for a treatment to be considered effective or scientifically proven, a much more thorough evaluation of what is usually done is required. Ultimately, the Swiss Government’s report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy, including an assessment of double-blind randomized clinical trials, as well as other evidence, all of which together determine that homeopathic remedies are Effective.

_______________________________________________
Original text appeared in The Huffington Post.


Homeopathy03What is homeopathy?

Discovered at the end of the eighteenth century, thanks to the observations and experiments of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, homeopathy is based on a biological reality, known by Hippocrates, the law of similarity: “Any substance capable of causing pathological symptoms in a healthy individual, Is capable, at infinitesimal doses, of treating those symptoms in a sick individual. ” Discovered at the end of the eighteenth century, thanks to the observations and experiments of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, homeopathy is based on a biological reality, known by Hippocrates, the law of similarity: “Any substance capable of causing pathological symptoms in a healthy individual, Is capable, at infinitesimal doses, of treating those symptoms in a sick individual. ” This exact knowledge of the similarity between the drug and the disease justifies the specific goal of Homeopathy to individualize the patient and their treatment, using each person’s reaction capacities. Applying these principles, homeopathy uses organic substances, minerals and vegetables to stimulate the body’s immune defenses. In this way, the body can mobilize its own defenses, against pathogens, viruses and bacteria, and restore its balance, destabilized by the aggressions of modern life (stress, pollution, etc.). Homeopathy is based on two laws: the law of similarity or law of fellow beings and the law of infinitesimality.

In homeopathy, and especially in chronic diseases, the goal is to go beyond the relief of the symptoms that are appearing, it seeks to help the patient to restore overall their natural balance. To this end, the homeopathic doctor in the consultation will take into account, in addition to the symptoms or health problems that the patient presents, their physical constitution and their way of reacting and sensations in front of the disease, besides factors of improvement or of worsening. That is why it is said that the treatment, in homeopathy, is more personalized.