Homeopathy

Not long ago we printed a letter in DC from a doctor who decided to investigate homeopathy because of a column I had written. He claimed to have then proceeded to read a "few books on the subject" and "became quite convinced that it is rubbish. In fact the 1988 Index Medicus classifies it under Therapeutic Cults." He couldn't believe that by diluting a substance that it might become more potent and promised to cover the reasons for any of the successes of homeopathy at some future time.

The good doctor went on to discuss a favorable homeopathic research report that had been printed in the prestigious British journal Nature, and how this publication sent out their own investigating team to disprove the homeopathic concept. Apparently the team did -- to his great satisfaction.

"What really causes me a great deal of concern," he went on, "is that a few CCE approved chiropractic colleges have postgraduate courses in this mumbo jumbo. It's no wonder we have such a poor image in the scientific community. If our chiropractic colleges only devoted a few hours instruction on the evaluation of scientific evidence, many pseudo-sciences like homeopathy could be avoided by its graduates."

My, my, my. With great humility I must admit that I stand in the presence of genius. Here is a man who became an expert on homeopathy by reading a few books and periodicals. Unfortunately, I've had to read more than a few books and periodicals. And in spite of the fact that I've taken substantially more hours in homeopathy than the MD does in pharmacology -- I still don't feel I know even a quarter of what I should on the subject. It is also impossible for me to tell you exactly why all the remedies work when they do. But then the prescribing MD doesn't know how the chemicals he prescribes work -- if it hasn't killed the patient first. At least the homeopathic remedies are essentially harmless. No wonder they are listed as a "Therapeutic Cult" by the Index Medicus. Where's the fun in working with things that won't harm the patient?

Let's also make it clear -- few people ever try homeopathy first. Like chiropractic, homeopathy is a last resort. The patient first trying homeopathy is usually pretty disillusioned and isn't expecting anything special from something new. In spite of this negative attitude, homeopathy gets results. Placebo? Sure -- if you believe that such athletes as Boris Becker and O.J. Simpson have a vested interest in selling homeopathic products. Maybe the writer of the letter would better serve the public if he informed the British Royal Family what fools they've been since the 1830's when they started taking the homeopathics. It would also be appropriate to inform Yehudi Menuhin, Mother Teresa, Tina Turner and Lindsay Wagner of their stupidity for falling for the homeopathic mumbo jumbo.

He might have trouble convincing Mahatma Gandhi, John D. Rockefeller or Daniel Webster, of course. And all the cats and dogs and other animals might also be hard to convince. You know how set in its way a cat or dog can be.

As for me, I suppose I should tell the girl cured of epileptic seizures with homeopathic remedies that I was only kidding. And all the children who are no longer on drugs for asthma must be told that what they got was a placebo, even though to them the homeopathics were just more pills they had to take.

Maybe the letter writer might do as I did. Read books. Go to homeopathic seminars and classes and then apply what he has learned. The results from homeopathic therapy is the bottom line. It's wonderful to see people respond to something that is safe and effective -- which is one of the reasons I love to adjust.

Organized medicine and the drug companies are out to destroy chiropractic, homeopathy, and anything else that threatens their financial power base. The Nature article was a report on a five-year study by the distinguished French researcher, Jacques Benveniste and leading scientists from four major universities. It was repeated 70 times.

The magazine must have gotten pure hell from the medical/pharmaceutical interests for daring to print anything favorable on homeopathy. Apparently wanting to assuage the wrath of allopathic medicine, the editor decided to form his own team of "debunkers." This "distinguished" team consisted of the editor himself, an "expert" in scientific fraud (whatever qualifications that might entail) and a professional magician known as James, the "Amazing" Randi. By the very character of this group of therapeutic "ghostbusters" it would seem their interest was more show biz than genuine research. They labored for a whole week to disprove five years of real research and consequently ignored any favorable results to promulgate instead, their special brand of sophistry.

If you wish to learn about chiropractic you should ask a chiropractor, not an MD. By the same token -- if you want to know about homeopathic research you should contact the Foundation for Homeopathic Education and Research, 5916 Chabot Crest, Oakland California 94618.

Our letter writer apparently prefers the expertise of the "Amazing" Randi. Can't help but wonder what he would think if ol' "Amazing" decided to debunk chiropractic as his next "scientific" project.

In the preceding, we have tried to deal with one form of specifics. More constructively, it should be emphasized that homeopathic therapy can be extremely specific to the needs of the patient.

As specialists in spinal problems, those remedies germane to our interests should prove of special value. For cervical problems Gelsemium is often effective, the thoracics usually respond to China or Ranunculus, for lumbar problems Ammonium Muriaticum, and for sciatic pain Colocynthis might help. All this in addition to -- not in place of -- chiropractic adjustments.

None of the preceding may work -- but then nothing is a panacea. The important thing is that you study and try it yourself instead of waiting for the approval of a professional magician.