Also with SARS-CoV19 (the so-called Corona virus) any attempt of homeopathic prevention or even treatment is ineffective and dangerous!
Nosodes? No interest…
The search term “homeopathic vaccines” finds more than 500,000 hits on Google. With “nosodes” you get more than 280,000 hits (retrieved on 22.02.2020). Remarkable, considering that homeopathic vaccination is a useless to dangerous undertaking and “nosode” is an artificial word from pre-scientific times.
TL:DR (Too long – didn’t read)
Homeopathic vaccinations are ineffective and, if mistakenly relied upon for immune protection, represent a considerable health risk. The principle and the nosode teaching did not come from Hahnemann himself. They contradict basic assumptions of the homeopathic doctrine. They follow the isopathic, not the homeopathic principle (healing with equality, not similarity). Hahnemann rejected the isopathic principle in the final edition of the Organon. Both principles are pre-scientific speculations and play no role in the current state of medical knowledge.
The study situation shows that methodically correct work could not prove any immune-protective effect of a homeopathic “vaccination” with nosodes. In many cases, the offering of homeopathic vaccinations and their outgrowths – such as homeopathic “excretions” of vaccinations – is close to anti-vaccination thinking.
What is at stake?
From the homeopathic scene there are occasional arguments that Hahnemann and the homeopaths “invented” vaccination, that Hahnemann was positive and open-minded about Jenner’s cowpox vaccination and that homeopathic “vaccination” is practised in reality. As justification they refer to Hahnemann’s basic principle of Similia similibus curentur, may similar things cure similar things. This is exactly what happens with the vaccination. The “homeopathic vaccination” uses remedies called “nosodes”, homeopathically prepared components of disease products of the body.
What’s the deal with that?
There is no homeopathic prophylaxis and there can be none
Vaccinating does not “heal”. It is practising medical prophylaxis, disease prevention. This is completely alien to Hahnemann’s model of homeopathy.
Hahnemann’s homeopathy is a doctrine of medicine which, in Hahnemann’s own words, is supposed to “take away the totality of the symptoms”. Hahnemann did not have a concept of illness that went beyond this, let alone ideas about the origin and course of illness (etiology). It cannot be stressed often enough: homeopathy is a symptom therapy, the recording of a “holistic” view of the patient through the detailed homeopathic anamnesis (symptom picture) serves exclusively to select the “suitable” remedy from the repertories (§ 17 and 18 of the Organon).
Where could there be room for prophylaxis, for medical prevention of diseases in this model, which presupposes acute illness? It does not exist. Homeopathy is always “healing art” on the already diseased – by definition.
Moreover, the assumption that vaccination is similar to homeopathy and that homeopathy can also vaccinate causes the downfall of the homeopathic principle of individualized therapy. The basis of the homeopathic approach is the individual “detuning of the spiritual vital force” in the individual patient, against which there is only one, “the” only remedy, which the “genuine healer” has to find out.
How should vaccination or prevention be carried out in the case of illnesses that occur individually in each patient in this sense? Based on the idea of the individuality of each symptom of a disease (better: of the totality of symptoms), Hahnemann in § 54 of the Organon explicitly criticizes allopaths for “spending the diseases on conditions that always reappeared in quite the same way”. It is obvious: If there are no diseases that recur “in quite the same way”, then there is no way to prevent them anyway, and certainly not to vaccinate preventively.
The incompatibility of prophylaxis with basic principles of Hahnemann’s teaching is obvious.
Modern vaccination – misunderstood
Anyone who links with vaccination by reference to the principle of similarity has not or incorrectly understood the vaccination mechanism.
The vaccine that is administered has no protective effect itself. Rather, it triggers an immune reaction in the body, causing it to produce antibodies against the potential disease. Mind you, antibodies. It is not the “simile”, the vaccine dose itself, that is the “active substance”, but rather the antibodies formed in a second step, the immune reaction, which are literally “antidotes”, not “similes”. Which Hahnemann rejected in § 23 of the Organon, regarding their ability to “eliminate and destroy persistent symptoms of disease”. And how should a “vaccination similium” work – after all, is the purpose of the remedy in homeopathy to trigger an “artificial disease” similar to the existing one?
And one more important point: the necessary vaccination dose of a protective vaccination is determined precisely, taking into account the dose-effect relationship. There is no “dosage” for nosodes. They are usually administered as potencies D6 or D8 – i.e. in potency levels where the impurities of the solvent already outweigh the residues of the original substance.
The correctly considered inoculation mechanism is therefore neither a witness for nor an ally of homeopathy, but even one of the numerous chief witnesses against it.
Prof. Tina Salomon’s detailed article on the “homeopathic 20-million peanuts”, which we recently published under the heading “Points of View”, met with great interest – and the desire to provide a “short version” of it.
We would like to thank Prof. Salomon for the effort she has put into a “TL:DR”. We publish it here as a separate article:
Too long, didn’t read
Since one could not quite wrongly accuse the contribution “So okay, Minister Spahn? – No way!” of coming across as a deterrent wall of text, here are the most important statements once again, in a different order, but with the same result:
A health service that is not effective cannot be cost-effective – which means that the reimbursement of homeopathy violates the economic principle of the SHI.
The most scientific sentence of all time is probably Ben Goldacre’s “I think you will find it’s a bit more complicated than that” because scientific statements are rarely unambiguous, but always only small steps towards gaining knowledge. This is exactly what distinguishes them from the promises of salvation in alternative medicine. But also in science, there are cases where some steps towards gaining knowledge have already been taken, so that today there are scientific statements that we can put an exclamation mark on them. “Gravity!” and “And yet it turns!” fall into this category. “Homeopathy does not work beyond the placebo effect” is pretty darn close. And “There is no free lunch!” ((explanation here). This describes – in economics as the theory of scarcity – the inevitability of scarcity and thus the necessity of economic thinking and action. Even in those areas in which we would rather believe in free lunch, such as health care.
The existence of scarcity is undisputed among the actors in the health care system; conflicts arise only over the question of how to deal with this scarcity. Jens Spahn’s “only 20 million” argument tempts us to see the health care system as a land of milk and honey where there is no shortage and therefore no better ways of using these funds so that no harm is done by tying up “only 20 million” for a proven ineffective method. However, the “land of milk and honey in health care” is an illusion, which is only due to the current prosperity and the need principle in the SHI system. We are confronted with shortages in the health care system in all corners and ends: In the lack of time for discussion and attention, in the refusal to reimburse for measures with no or only uncertain proof of effectiveness, in the restriction of reimbursement to services with a probable health gain and in the exclusion from reimbursement of measures that only lead to gains in quality of life.
With “only 20 million euros” Jens Spahn denies the basic fact of scarcity in the health care system and disregards the need for an operationalisable, consensus-based and scientifically sound demarcation criterion for the decision between “reimbursement” and “no reimbursement”. And this causes much greater damage than “only €20 million”.
On the subject of “greater damage”, we also refer to the positioning of other health scientists from more recent times. There is a lot of scientific literature on the topic of “prioritisation” and “marginal benefit” in health care systems.
This text describes the topic “Homoeopathy in German Pharmaceutical Law”.
Anyway, WE all agree…
In 1976, consultations began on a fundamental reorganisation of German pharmaceutical law. By and large, the state’s involvement in the pharmaceutical industry previously consisted of little more than a “registration” of drugs placed on the market under the responsibility of pharmaceutical manufacturers.
It had taken a long time for the legislature to consider its own responsibility in the field of drug supply. A trigger for this was the thalidomide scandal of the 1960s. This terrible process, in which neither the manufacturer nor the state authorities presented a particularly happy picture, gradually led to a growing awareness of the need for action – yet it still took 17 years before a fundamental reorganisation took place.
The basic approach of the new Medicines Act was to replace the mere registration with an “approval procedure” for pharmaceutical medicinal products and to link this to scientifically substantiated evidence of efficacy and side effects. The parliamentary and extra-parliamentary discussion dragged on for more than two years – in the end, the “Medicines Act 1978” (Arzneimittelgesetz) was passed. This marked a move away from a largely individual-empirical based therapy towards a drug therapy on as objective a basis as possible. All old remedies already registered at that time were subjected to a subsequent approval procedure, and many were no longer approved – often to the chagrin of doctors who had been using these remedies for a long time for “empirical medicine”. Even the pharmaceuticals marketed in the former GDR at the time of reunification were subject to such a subsequent approval procedure.
So far, so remarkable. So are all available medicines based on scientifically proven efficacy?
Not at all.
A very active parliamentary and also extra-parliamentary lobby succeeded in obtaining special rights for the “Erfahrungsheilkunde” ( experience medicine), to which apart from homeopathy anthroposophy and herbal medicine were added (how these three are connected is a story in itself). At that time it could be suggested to the parliamentarians in the context of the upcoming “innovations” that the “empirical medicine” of these directions pursues a completely different “approach” and that the principle of scientific proof, so to speak, bypasses the “peculiarities” of these directions. The parliamentary paper at that time speaks volumes and is quite interesting to read. [1]
Many parliamentarians may have been aware that the demand for proven effective drugs has nothing to do with “pluralism in science” and “a fundamentally different approach”, but represents nothing more than a self-evident basic consensus for health care. On the other hand, the representatives of the homeopathic and anthroposophical lobby will have been fully aware that the demand for scientific proof of efficacy would have meant the end for their remedies on the pharmaceutical market. Which, incidentally, was basically an admission that the homeopaths’ claims about the efficacy of their remedies and their great benefit to the patient were not substantially. So it was about something.
And so it came to a complete break with what had actually been the intention of the new law, in favour of what at that time was called “empirical medicine” and understood itself to be a kind of “separate medicine”. Special rules in the AMG established homeopathy, anthroposophy and phytotherapy (herbal medicine) as “special therapeutic directions” and granted them special rights. The proof of efficacy according to recognized scientific methods, actually the purpose and intention of the law for everything that wanted to trade as a drug, was waived on for these remedies.
In order to preserve the appearance of state regulation, it was decided that special commissions were to be set up at the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (which at the time was still called differently) for the “special therapeutic directions”. For homeopathics, this is still Commission D today.
The old instrument of simple “registration” was retained for the medicinal products of these “directions”, as long as they were not to be marketed and advertised with a medical indication – as a purely administrative procedure in Division 4 of the BfArM. This department decides whether a remedy is homeopathic at all (of course the simple registration is extraordinarily “popular”) and, according to its own statements, makes this dependent on the “manufacturing process”, i.e. on the application of the principle of potentiated basic substance. In addition, safety and compliance with best practice rules during production are checked.
Those manufacturers who wish to advertise with an indication, i.e. information on areas of application, can submit an “application for approval”. The Commission D has to decide on this application. It bases its decision on “homeopathic knowledge material”, the evaluation of which is reserved for the “experts in the therapeutic direction” within Commission D. The Commission is therefore not responsible for the objective scientific evaluation of this material. On the contrary, such is suspended in favour of an “internal”, i.e. always subjective, expert assessment. In this way the “special therapeutic directions” are namely protected from the requirements of objective science, but at the same time, they also lack any possibility of invoking on this.
To clarify once again: the task of Commission D (and the commissions for the other special therapeutic directions) is not the evaluation of the approved applications of efficacy according to objective scientific criteria, as is the case for normal pharmaceuticals. No, the internal group of “experts” who have the “medical expertise in the therapeutic direction” will decide on the approval and thus the market access of homeopathic medicinal products with indications. Among themselves. In a joint consensus. According to personal perception, opinion or “experience”, according to “internal evidence” instead of intersubjective, generally valid criteria. This situation has remained unchanged since 1978 – on the homepage of Department 4 of the BfArM there is still talk of the relic of “scientific pluralism in the field of drug therapy”, which the legislation (40 years ago) had expressly provided for. Already at that time an anachronism that should not have been followed. [2]
This is the so often invoked “internal consensus” which still privileges homeopathy (and the other “special directions”) in an unacceptable way, even erecting a real protective fence around it. From the legal point of view – and in the general public’s perception – the remedies of the “special therapeutic directions” are just as much “drugs” as any pharmaceutical product that has undergone a testing and approval process that often takes years (only about eight per cent of all new developments in the pharmaceutical industry make it to approval in the first place). Homeopathy – and anthroposophy – are obviously doing their utmost to maintain this special legal regulation. This is because of their integration into the health care system and social security law depends directly on it.
There is nothing in German pharmaceutical law that is more in need of reform.
Samuel Hahnemann, the inventor of homeopathy, would have turned 265 today.
A retrospective by Dr. Natalie Grams
Samuel Hahnemann (born 1755 in Koethen, Saxonia, died 1843 in Paris)
When I first heard a sentence from Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, I was a young medical student – and totally excited: “The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on clearly comprehensible principles.” (Organon, 6th edition). Whoa! That was exactly what I wanted to achieve as a prospective doctor: to understand, to really understand what made my patients ill and to help them to achieve improvement in the gentlest and yet best possible way. In short: I found this ideal great.
At my university I found like-minded people during my studies and learned homeopathy there in student circles and in courses and weekend seminars. I read the texts by Hahnemann, in particular his basic works “The Organon of Medicine” and “The Chronic Diseases” and really had the feeling that I had found a particularly healthening form of medicine. Later I opened a private practice for homeopathy, treated my own family and patients mainly homeopathically and was happy about the success. Although I heard here and there about the criticism of homeopathy, I dismissed it as unfounded – without looking into it any further – and swore by Hahnemann. I was fascinated by his idea that illness only arose because the immaterial life force in humans was disturbed and this in turn could only be brought into an even flow by immaterial healing force in drugs. The successes, which I also saw in practice and in my circle of acquaintances, convinced me that this concept simply had to have something to do with this. I could have imagined keeping this work and this medicine up to the end of my life. Hahnemann appeared to me as a genius, a great thinker and pioneer of his time.
In order to really understand homeopathy and its founder, however, we must keep in mind the time Hahnemann lived at and how he came up with his ideas and the development of his own “medicine”. Especially in the last 200 years, medicine and science made an enormously progress. Hahnemann had no idea of bacteria, infection pathways, the immune system in all its complexity and how we could influence it. His ideas, as innovative as they were at that time, have become untenable regarding to the background of today’s knowledge. Moreover, he had succumbed to a thinking error from the very beginning. The well-known chinona bark self-experiment, with which he believed to have found the similarity principle of homeopathy, could never be reproduced after all.
Homeopathy may have been a blessing as an alternative to the medicine of that time, but today it is no longer the case (neither alternative nor blessing). By turning away from the then usual rough methods such as bloodletting or vomiting cures, Hahnemann certainly contributed to a better medicine. This is still his merit and legacy. Today, however, knowledge in physics and chemistry is completely sufficient to be able to say that nothing else happens during the production of homeopathic remedies than a very, very heavy dilution, which leads to the fact that usually no active substance is present at all and no energy is produced. After all, the globules cannot do any direct harm, but they don’t really work either. This does not make homeopathy completely ineffective and this explains the successes that I have also noticed: A so-called “sham therapy” does not mean that nothing happens. Only the thought and the hope that someone treats us well can lead to physical improvements in us humans. It’s called the placebo effect. That is not nothing, but it is also certainly not a medication therapy – and it does not replace such if you are really ill. Hahnemann himself could not know this, because he had neither the knowledge of today’s natural sciences, nor the statistical possibilities, the theory of science, and our complex methods (“clinical studies”) today to test the efficacy of drugs and methods in medicine. So we can’t blame him! But anyone who still believes one to one in his statements today is wrong together with Hahnemann who deceased 176 years ago. Where there is nothing, nothing can work – except good faith and understandable hope.
Even today, when I have distanced myself far from homeopathy and criticize it in many places, I believe that Hahnemann was a mastermind of his time. However, someone who has been refuted in many of his thoughts over the course of time. But it is not a sign of tolerance to hold on to what has been refuted. Let us thank him for what he did well in his time and let us remain realistic: Even 264 years after Hahnemann’s birth, healing does not come from nothing. And as beautiful as the sentence of gentle and comprehensive permanent healing sounds for us, as little has been proven in almost 200 years of research that it is also true when homeopathy is used as a medication therapy. And didn’t Hahnemann himself demand “clearly comprehensible principles”?
Today, I find it important to be honest with patients and not to keep them from really effective therapy with deceptive promises of salvation – even if this may consist in waiting patiently (this will be the case often more than expected). If there is one thing that I have taken with me from my time in homeopathy, it is that our body is surprisingly often healed all by itself and with the help of its inherent self-healing capacities. And that really is the gentlest and most natural way of healing.
Picture: Wikimedia commons
This article was published originally in German on the blog “deiks.de” and is published here slightly acuralized.
Representatives of homeopathy often claim that nanoparticles of the mother tincture are the carriers of the effectiveness of homeopathic preparations. That this is not possible at all can be seen after quite simple considerations:
Nanoparticles are particles that consist of comparatively few atoms or molecules and are therefore very small. The size is measured according to “nanometres”, which is the millionth part of a millimetre. Because of their small size, nanoparticles have astonishing properties; they can penetrate cell membranes, for example, are very reactive and much more.
If homeopathy with nanoparticles is to work, such particles would have to be present in the finished preparation the patient is taking. These are particles from the mother tincture, the original substance with which the production of the homeopathic remedy began. And that is the key with which this assertion can quite simply be reduced to absurdity.
Potentiation is also dilution. This means that the more often you potentiate, the less of the starting material is present in the solution. And already from very early potencies the quantity of these atoms or molecules is no longer sufficient to form nanoparticles in appreciable numbers.
No problem, say the homeopaths, these nanoparticles are certainly somehow passed from one potency to the next quite completely. But nobody can explain how this is supposed to happen, how to make sure that the particles are also noticed if only one tenth or even one hundredth of the solution is removed in order to then potentiate them further. Nor what the point of this undertaking would be if it were successful. If the nanoparticles remain the same as before, what will change in the efficacy that is to be increased by potentiation?
Yes, homoeopaths say again, perhaps the particles will become smaller through the subsequent shaking and thus more reactive and thus more effective? Good answer, but why do we have to keep on diluting? Why can’t we just prepare the solution once, say one gram of primary substance to one litre of water or a mixture of water and alcohol, and then simply shake until the desired strength is reached? No more answer.
There is also no answer to the objection that in order to be effective via nanoparticles, the original substance itself must first form nanoparticles in the solution. This is precisely what substances that are soluble in solvents do not do. Just some of the most universally applicable homeopathic remedies, sodium chloratum, potassium carbonicum and arsenic album, are salts that form differently electrically charged particles (“ions”) in the solution, but no nanoparticles.
Nanoparticles in an electron microscope image, with size scale in nanometers (millionth of a millimeter)
Now, however, nanoparticles have been found in sodium chloratum, even at highest potencies, is there even research on it? Yes, this happened – but how? One has examined highly potentiated solution of sodium chloratum with an electron microscope for nanoparticles. The only problem is that the sample, i.e. the drop to be examined, has to be dried. The impurities contained in the solvent – 10 milligrams per cubic centimeter – remain and form crystals. And this is what can be found under the microscope: Crystals of impurities, the most common of which is the ubiquitous table salt, i.e. sodium chloratum. Of course, these crystals can also be found on the globules, theoretically at least, but when the patient takes them, the salt dissolves again in the saliva – and the nanoparticles observed are gone.
That should be enough. Let us spare ourselves the thought of how nanoparticles would actually have to be imagined if primordial substances from the animal and plant kingdoms were used. What do the nanoparticles contain in these cases? Which of the many thousands of different substances that make up an animal or a plant are combined to form nanoparticles? Or is the nanoparticle an extremely miniaturised image of the original organism that contains everything? If not, how is the right component selected? And what do the nanoparticles look like when non-material primary substances are used? Light, electricity or vacuum?
As you can see: The concept of nanoparticles as carriers of the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies generates more questions than answers and is absolutely not suitable to explain the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies.
What happens after ingesting a homeopathic remedy – according to the homeopathic build of thought?
Occasionally one is confronted with the argument that the effect of homeopathic remedies cannot be based on a placebo effect because often the first homeopathic remedy did not “heal” at all, but only the second, third, fourth or fifth …
In fact, at first glance this argument seems to have something for itself. A closer look, however, shows that it is not in favour of homeopathy, but against it.
Behind this argument, however, lies a confusion of terms.
It is not only about “placebo”
On the one hand, there is the established term “placebo effect”, which refers to the reactions that can also trigger empty forms of medication in the body. This actual placebo effect is not a constant quantity. It depends on the disease and is highly individual and unpredictable in its time of onset, strength and duration. But it also depends on the properties of the placebo: It is known that more expensive placebos have a stronger effect than cheap ones and red placebos have a stronger effect than green ones. The placebo effect cannot be calculated or controlled. It cannot be demanded by nature in such a way that it corresponds to its cliché.
However, this placebo effect (in the narrower sense) is not the only reason why the administration of homeopathic remedies can lead to a feeling of improvement or healing. Other important reasons are:
Spontaneous course of the disease. Many (most) diseases heal spontaneously. Many other diseases, especially chronic ones, have a wave-like course, so that “bad times” are spontaneously followed by “good times” (“regression to the middle”).
“Confirmation error” and “selective perception”. Small positive experiences are evaluated as therapy success, but negative developments are not attributed to the therapy.
“Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc” error. All changes after ingestion are causally attributed to ingestion, although causality is not given, but only a simple temporal relationship.
Expectational pressure and expectations.
May be continued …
If not the first homoeopathic is regarded as effective, but only a second, third, further one, then several points come together. On the one hand, one sees nothing else in these courses than the spontaneous course of the disease. Homeopathic medicine has nothing at all to do with “healing”. The improvement is simply attributed to the last homeopathic used. Also, with every further administration of homeopathic remedies, the therapist’s pressure of expectation as well as the patient’s attitude of expectation increases, which can feign fictitious success. Also, the term “success” or “healing” is not defined in an objective-medical sense; usually the patients only report their subjective feelings. But also deteriorations are often called “success”: The term “initial aggravation” indicates that aggravations are seen as proving the right choice of means.
Can a homeopathic remedy be “ineffective”?
The approach of homeopaths to give other remedies until finally something desired happens at some point shows not only the therapeutic helplessness of homeopathy and the misinterpretation of chance or completely natural processes as “success” – it also stands in stark contradiction to Hahnemann’s teaching.
Hahnemann justifies his principle of similarity with the postulate that a body cannot have two similar diseases at the same time – it must then separate from one, namely the weaker one. In “drug tests” – on healthy people! – homeopathic remedies are examined for “drug pictures” allegedly produced by them. If a patient shows symptoms similar to those of a drug picture, then the right remedy has been found. The correct selection of “potency” is then intended to ensure that the homeopathic remedy is stronger in nature but weaker in symptoms than the disease (whatever one might imagine it to be). Because of this, the body should separate from the “right” of the two diseases (the comparatively weaker original disease), but not suffer (because of the comparatively weaker symptoms of the art disease).
If the recovery is not complete, the logic of homeopathy leads to certain conclusions, especially that the previous remedy was not “ineffective”. What does this mean?
According to the homeopathic doctrine, if the “right” remedy is chosen, “healing success” should occur quickly and completely:
“… fast, gentle, permanent restoration of health, or lifting and destruction of the disease in its entirety by the shortest, most reliable, most unholy means …”. (§ 2 Organon)
If there is a change instead of a complete recovery, the homeopathic remedy – mind you: in the imaginary world of homeopathy – has changed some of the symptoms and thus the symptom picture. Even if the homeopathic remedy was completely ineffective with regard to the disease, at least a “drug test on healthy persons” has taken place:
According to the rules of homeopathy, a homeopathic remedy cannot have “no effect” – not even a “wrong” remedy. Homeopathic remedies (from a homeopathic point of view) have an effect on symptoms: If symptoms are present in the clinical picture which are also contained in the drug picture of the homeopathic remedy, they are “extinguished”. If symptoms are present in the clinical picture which are not contained in the drug picture of the homeopathic remedy, they remain unchanged. If, however, symptoms are present in the drug picture but not in the clinical picture, then they are produced in the patient – who is considered “partially healthy” with regard to the non-existent symptoms – in the same way as in a normal drug test on a completely healthy person.
In any case – according to homeopathic doctrine – the administration of a homeopathic remedy causes changes which lead to a change in the symptoms. Either it has an effect on the “disease” or in the sense of “homeopathic drug testing” by causing symptoms. Thus the repeated administration of the same medicine (i.e. with an unchanged drug picture) is in any case a “mistake”, against which Hahnemann has already acted sharply in his time:
If a different remedy is “tried out” with every new therapy attempt, the consequence is that a correct selection (“repertorization”) is no longer possible with any further homeopathic remedy: The superimposition of the complete or partial symptom pictures from all earlier remedies makes a correct choice of remedy – according to homeopathic criteria – impossible.
The bad habit of treating patients after “trial and error” therefore does not speak at all for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. On the contrary, this practice once again deprives Hahnemann’s homeopathic thought structure of decisive ground. It is the desperate attempt of the homeopaths to be perceived “sometime” and “somehow” as “successful”. Such a procedure provokes a considerable delay of important treatment measures and accepts them cheaply, which can lead to serious damages. There can be no question of “proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy” if one produces random events until a – not causal – desired event occurs.
Homeopathy is occasionally referred to as “stimulus-regulation therapy”, which assumes the existence of a corresponding explanatory model. The reader (or listener) is left alone with this term – there is no precise explanation of how homeopathy could work as stimulus-regulation therapy.
What does “regulation” actually mean?
The term “stimulus-regulation therapy” contains the word “regulation”. In technology and in nature many variables (properties, parameters) are “regulated”, i.e. they are kept constant by a “control loop”.
Part of a technical control loop
A well-known example from technology is the regulation of room temperature. In the room there is a sensor for the temperature (“thermometer”), there is a device (“actuator”) that can change the room temperature (“heating” or “cooling unit”) and there is a circuit that uses the measured values from the thermometer to influence the actuator so that the temperature remains constant. The thermometer with built-in circuit keeps the temperature constant (static) by activating the actuators, therefore it is also called “thermostat”. When the room temperature drops, more heat is emitted from the heating. When the room temperature rises, excess heat is dissipated via the cooling unit.
There are also many parameters in our body that have to be kept constant. The range of permitted fluctuations is usually very small; excessively large deviations are not compatible with life. The principle is called “homeostasis”. Although this word is similar to the word “homeopathy”, it means something completely different. The prefix “homoeo” means – in both cases – “the same” and “-stase” describes that a state is “standing”, “static” or constant. (The word “homeopathy” actually means that a disease is to be cured with a “same” disease – and is thus wrongly chosen, because in homeopathy not the “principle of equality” applies, but the “principle of similarity” Hahnemann attached great importance to this distinction).
Some examples of homeostasis in the body are given below:
The oxygen saturation in the blood. If the measured value drops, respiration is forced.
Associated with this is the carbon dioxide content in the blood. If the measured value increases, respiration is forced.
The salt content in the blood. If it rises, one gets thirsty and drinks water for dilution and the kidney excretes more salt. If it sinks, you get an appetite for saltiness and the kidney excretes more water.
The blood sugar level. If it rises, more insulin is released. If it sinks, you get a ravenous appetite for sweets.
The body temperature. If it sinks, the muscles begin to tremble (“freeze”) and try to generate movement heat, it rises, sweat is excreted to cool the body by evaporative cooling.
The list is of course far from complete, but these examples will suffice for your understanding.
Control loops follow the allopathic, not the homeopathic principle.
What you can see in all these examples: The control has the opposite effect on the disturbing change in order to cancel it out in this way. If the blood pressure rises, it is lowered. If the blood glucose level rises, it is lowered. If the body temperature rises, it is lowered. If the acid content in the blood rises, it is lowered. This principle corresponds to what Hahnemann contemptuously called “allopathy”. Even today it is still called “symptom suppression” by homeopaths.
The principle of homeopathy, however, is – in disregard of the wrongly chosen term “homeopathic” – to eliminate a disturbance by a similar disturbance. What should one imagine – with regard to the term “stimulus-regulation therapy”? Should, for example, an increased salt content in the blood be corrected by “even more salt” (possibly of a different type)? This would additionally burden the homeostasis, even if the amount of salt added is small. In addition, it is not necessary to “push” the control loop; the control loops are basic life functions. In the case of kidney damage, for example, the control sensor correctly measures the high salt content – it is the diseased kidney that cannot excrete the excess salt. There can be no stimulus regulation under the premise of the principle of similarity.
Hahnemann does not, however, explain homeopathy by any means via “stimulus regulation”. Hahnemann assumes that a body can never have two similar diseases at the same time. In such a case, he would have to separate from one of the two diseases: the weaker one. The aim of homeopathy is therefore to provide a diseased body with a second disease (“artificial disease”, triggered by the homeopathic remedy, which has a similar “drug picture” to the “symptom picture” of the disease). This second disease must be stronger in nature (it is supposed to drive away the original disease, which must be weaker), but weaker in symptoms (otherwise no one would want to be treated if the treatment produces more complaints than the disease). The term “stimulus regulation” does not fit into Hahnemann’s explanatory model.
Wrong labels
We observe in homeopathy that Hahnemann’s pre-scientific explanations are to be explained with modern scientific terms, “subsequently interpreted”, but this is not possible. Hahnemann’s doctrine of diseases from pre-scientific times does not know today’s terms such as “cellular pathology”, “physiology”, “biochemistry”, “biomechanics”, “microbiology”. The similarity principle of homeopathy and the homeostasis of body sizes are mutually exclusive. If one wants to regulate stimuli, one needs the “allopathy principle”. If one wants to adhere to the “homeopathy principle”, the term “stimulus regulation” remains empty.
Minor injuries with swelling (“bumps”) are often treated with arnica (e.g. in small children after they have fallen and a “bruise” forms, sometimes even prophylactically in athletes). The rapid decrease in swelling is considered to be evidence of the medicinal effect of homeopathic medication.
There are two different types of application:
1. Arnica as a herbal medicinal product, mostly administered in the form of ointments. The quantity of medicinal substances is sufficiently high so that an efficacy of the plant ingredients cannot be ruled out at all.
2. Arnica as a homeopathic remedy, mostly administered in the form of globules. The amount of medicinal substances is reduced by the dilution process during potentiation to such an extent that the effectiveness of the herbal ingredients is excluded.
From the point of view of homeopathy, both types of application contradict each other. The similarity principle of homeopathy means that medicines are applied to sick people which produce the symptoms of the disease in healthy people. When homeopaths use arnica as a homeopathic remedy for swelling, they must assume that a higher dose of arnica causes swelling.
However, this is not possible, because a higher dosage of arnica is not used to cause swelling, but to treat it. If arnica reduces swelling in higher doses, it cannot be used as a homeopathic remedy for this indication. If arnica as a homeopathic remedy is effective against swelling, it should not be used in higher doses against swelling, because arnica would lead to an increase in swelling in this case.
Both application types are mutually exclusive. Arnica cannot be a homeopathic remedy if it is used as an “allopathic remedy” (a term used by Samuel Hahnemann to derogate medicine).
In case reports it is repeatedly pointed out that swelling disappears more quickly under arnica globules therapy than without.
It has to be said that a comparison between both versions – swelling with arnica globules compared to swelling without arnica globules – is not possible without large case numbers (studies): A patient cannot be treated with the same swelling with and without arnica at the same time. The recovery time is normally only an estimated value: usually the time is not determined by a stopwatch. The assertion that swelling would disappear more slowly if you don’t take arnica is nothing more than an assumption. In surgical outpatient departments, it is regularly observed that swelling decreases rapidly at all and that there are no differences between patients – regardless of whether or not arnica globules were administered.
What happens medically with a minor injury? In the first phase, substances are released into the tissue that lead to swelling. Blood vessels can also be injured so that blood escapes (“bruise”, “haematoma”). But already after a short time other substances (e.g. “histamine”) are released which lead to a vasodilatation. More liquid is then transported away via the more distant vessels in a shorter time and the swelling decreases again.
Conclusion: Arnica as a homeopathic remedy for minor injuries is ineffective.
1. The principle of similarity – one of the essential foundations of homeopathy – cannot be effective because higher doses of arnica are not used to create swelling but to treat it.
2. The exorbitant dilution during potentizing causes all ingredients necessary for the treatment to disappear: There are no active substances in the globules.
Comparisons between treatments “with” and “without” arnica globules cannot be performed on the same patient. Thus, it is not possible to determine whether the swelling with arnica globules has decreased more compared to the swelling without arnica globules: A patient cannot be treated with and without arnica for the same swelling. Here it is important that it is one and the same swelling – otherwise no comparison can be made.
4. the high rate of regression of swellings during treatment with arnica beads is only an estimated size, which is also very strongly dependent on wishful thinking and selective perception.
It is often not known that swelling quickly disappears even without treatment with arnica globules, but this can be explained very well from a medical point of view. You can trust it.
On this page you will find various information about the placebo effect, which explain that it is effective with any kind of attention – and therefore, of course, even more so with medical interventions. Furthermore, it is explained that homeopathy, like other pseudomedical procedures, sucks its honey partly from this effect instead of showing an own specific effect. Which – contrary to many a claim – not does help her to a place in scientific medicine.
This must be supplemented by a few remarks on the Nocebo effect. What does this mean?
There is a “counterpart” to the placebo effect: the nocebo effect. Placebo researchers even occasionally talk about the “side effect” of the placebo effect, but this does not quite hit the nail on the head. The mechanisms are the same, yes, placebo and nocebo are a sole phenomena. Only the effects of Nocebo are, so to speak, the “dark side” of the placebo effect, the negative mirror image. The differentiation between placebo and nocebo is thus only due to human perception and evaluation (similar to effects vs. side effects of drugs, which also is an evaluation system based purely on the utility or harm value in humans).
It is obvious that negative expectations can lead to a worsening of the patient’s condition – in the sense of a placebo effect with a negative sign. A good physician should take this into account in the same way as the placebo effect. Who does not know the “fear of the package insert”, which unfortunately causes a basic distrust of the prescribed medication in many people and thus often noticeably impairs its effect? The same applies in hospital if – what should not happen! – the patient is simply presented with his pill glass without being told what it is all about – the nocebo effect lurks. Especially if someone is already conditioned by pseudomedical “wisdom” to reservations about “conventional medicine”, which can very well have a negative effect on the effect of a finally inevitable medical treatment. It has also been proven many times that such an attitude leads to a lack of compliance – basically nothing more than an effect of Nocebo.
One of the most impressive examples of a nocebo effect is a study that was conducted with considerable effort and methodically correct in the USA a few years ago: The question was whether prayers can help in the recovery process. Patients who had undergone bypass surgery were divided into groups, one of whom knew that they were being prayed for and the other did not. This study showed a clear result: the group that knew they were prayed for clearly showed more complications and worse outcomes during convalescence. Quite obviously a Nocebo effect, which was certainly due to the – conscious or unconscious – assumption of the patients that it must be quite bad for them if they are prayed for …
Conclusion: placebo and nocebo effects are both important aspects that the responsible physician must always take into account. However, they are not a cheap alibi for the “effectiveness” of pseudomedical methods that cannot offer their own specific effects.
When trying to justify “placebo” as an independent medical intervention, it is repeatedly forgotten that placebo is neither predictable nor targeted. Main thing: placebo! Would the advocates of this view see it the same way when expecting nocebo effects? Especially since it depends on the situation and the patient whether a certain intervention has placebo or nocebo effects.
Let us first clarify what is meant by the term “placebo”. Here we would like to limit ourselves to placebos as drugs (yes, there are a lot of placebos that have nothing to do with drugs). Let us stick to the drugs: Then a placebo is a drug that is actually not a drug at all. It does not contain any medicinal substance. It looks and feels like an effective drug (or what you think it is) – but it doesn’t contain any active ingredients.
Nevertheless, such placebo drugs can cause something in the patient: the “placebo effect”. Not only does one feel better, but physical changes can also occur that can actually be detected. However, these are not caused by medicinal agents. Rather, they are caused by the fact that patients think they are receiving an effective drug and they have repeatedly experienced that treatment improves their symptoms. This is a complicated connection with psycho-physical effects, which has been well researched, but by no means completely, but which can be described quite simply for our consideration:
If a patient is convinced that a treatment will help him, he loses, at least for a while, his fears and worries. He can relax much better, and his self-healing powers can become more effective. This is the actual placebo effect.
But now we have to bear in mind that it is not only the pharmacological effect of a drug and this placebo effect that make the patient feel better after a certain time. There are other things that make this possible to a considerable extent – this “bundle” of causes is referred to as “context effects” (including the placebo effect), i.e. the sum of effects that are not triggered by a specifically effective medical intervention:
The natural course of the disease: In this case, the complaints go back by themselves, without any need to do anything about it. Let us think, for example, of mild colds, sprains, harmless superficial injuries, bruises in children, etc. These are all trifles that the body overcomes by itself – and not just these.
The regression to the middle: This is the effect that extreme situations in nature are rarely maintained for long. In terms of disease, this means that either the symptoms become worse and worse and possibly even tragic – or they go back to mediocrity. If you only start treatment when the situation is already difficult to bear (which is very often the case), you often have most of it behind you. The situation for the patient would also improve now without further external intervention.
Accompanying therapies or measures: When we humans feel ill, the time has often come for us to listen to good advice. That we, for example, pay attention to a healthy diet, take walks, replace alcohol and coffee with water and avoid cigarettes, move more or even spare ourselves if we have put up with too much. These seem to be trivialities – but they can achieve a lot.
Perhaps we also had accompanying therapies that do their work, such as physiotherapy, massages and the like. But also the improvement of the personal life situation or psychological help by a qualified therapist fall into this category.
Indirect effects: Perhaps we had also chosen a therapy that was not sensible and possibly even had side effects. By starting the new therapy, a previous one may be terminated, and the healing is a consequence of the now no longer occurring side effects of the old therapy, which did us no good. Or the patient is removed from the disease-causing influences, for example, he no longer goes to work because of his complaints or is no longer exposed to other disease-causing conditions due to a change of location. There are many possibilities here.
Getting used: The patient gets used to the situation, learns to deal with it and then does not feel his condition as unpleasant as it initially seemed to him.
Unknown causes: Ultimately, the healing can also come from things or circumstances that are not associated with it, either because they are overlooked or because the influence on the condition is not known and nobody pays attention to these things.
This should suffice here as an overview, which could certainly be supplemented further. All these effects can occur with any therapy – but they do not belong to the specific effect of the drug, because they are independent of what the patient is taking. This also applies to placebo.
“Scientifically proven” or “scientifically refuted” are statements that are often heard, but they are not precise. More correct would be the formulation “according to previous knowledge” – or more extensively “according to previous knowledge gained with scientific methods, which have proven themselves because of their extraordinarily high explanatory potential”. (1).
Statements such as “homeopathic effects can be proven” or “homeopathic effects can be refuted” cannot be decided purely logically (like a mathematical task), i.e. not by disregarding all observations. Neither can one decide purely formallogically whether our observations are correct. Statements about correctness are always tainted with the flaw that we cannot get one hundred percent certainty. Errors can never be excluded. Also an inner consistency is no guarantee for correctness (“truth”). This is the Critical rationalism, Karl Popper’s theory of science, which is generally accepted and practiced today and uses the method of falsification, the “false proof” (testing the validity of a theory by trying to debunk it).
The practice, however, is that apart from the contradiction-free system of the laws of nature – so far considered valid (strictly speaking “provisionally”) – we do not know a second contradiction-free system of laws of nature – and we cannot even imagine it! And that the laws of nature considered valid so far have the highest explanatory potential that we know. The physicists still have a lot of unexplained phenomena on their “to-do-list”, but they obviously have no need (again: until now) for further “tools” – no physicist seems to miss a fifth basic force. Even if not everything is explained yet, the explanatory potential of the scientific findings (important: they are “our” findings) is extraordinarily high. Until today, there has not been a single reason to explain the natural with the supernatural. Even if this cannot be “safely” ruled out for the future: If one excludes it “because of experience”, then that is completely sufficient. We can live well with the residual error: It is extremely small.
We don’t need more than our carefully gained experience either (however, this does not mean personal individual experience, but the portfolio of all scientifically obtained observation data). We have to find our way in our cosmos. And we brilliantly complete this task with our “set of insights”. In this cosmos no living being needs a “feeling” (possibility of recognition) for a 4th or 5th dimension. We can survive with our cognitive ability for a maximum of 3 dimensions. Measured against this goal, one may claim: Evolution, which allows us to recognize “only” three dimensions, has obviously not done much wrong.
Homeopathy and “Proof”
Homeopathy is not a glass bead game. It is not a question of certifying or denying a theoretically possible validity of homeopathy or other therapies with formal-logical and “hair-splitting” methods, of arguing it into a formally existing “knowledge gap”. Homoeopathy cannot be formally declared invalid “a priori” (although the statement is legitimate that because of the incompatibility of its premises with sound knowledge the probability of its validity is conceivably low) – accuracy freaks may enjoy this and be satisfied with it. For the important questions of practical application in daily practice, it is sufficient if homeopathy is declared invalid “a posteriori”, i.e. “in the aftermath”, measured against its actual effects: There are no demonstrable phenomena of efficacy beyond the placebo effect (failure due to empiricism). And homoeopathy violates our previously valid and proven findings (lack of external consistency).
Anyone who wants to rely on the expectation that a new, contradiction-free system of knowledge will someday ensure that homeopathy will still be possible in the future – because it will fit into the new system – can trust with equal justification that a new system will also be found for gravity. He can then already jump from Empire-State-Building in confidence in these future insights (oh what, a 10-m-tower is quite enough). We do not participate in these speculations and prefer to stay on the ground until gravity actually has repulsive instead of attractive forces …
We hold it there with Prof. Otto Prokop, a decisive and convincingly arguing homeopathy critic who wrote aptly in the middle of the last century:
“What is considered true in natural science is what fits harmoniously into the overall system of knowledge. (…) A hypothesis, if it is to satisfy, must be able to be brought into meaningful connection with all associated facts. (…) The limits within which there is objectification are the limits of the real world.” (2)
And what does philosophy say?
We can willingly concede to the philosophers (science theorists, epistemologists) that there is a difference between “security – in philosophical and formal-logical rigour” and “security – in everyday language use”. But: “Security – in philosophical and formallogical strictness” is an unattainable goal for everything. The term cannot be used outside formal logic: There is nothing that could fulfill this claim. With strict philosophical and formal-logical certainty, one cannot exclude neither yetis, fairies, elves, leprechauns … nor Sir Bertrand Russell’s teapot circling around Jupiter, which he used to illustrate this statement.
It is interesting, however, that precisely those who are philosophically strict in “not being able to exclude” and who demand this strictness are absolutely negligent in the popular conclusion derived from it, “Everything whose existence cannot be excluded is existent”. This conclusion is philosophically untenable and simply wrong – it is the aforementioned attempt to take advantage of an apparent “gap” in the system of evidence.
If such a conclusion were correct, then thinking would be an “act of creation”: I imagine something. No one can prove the non-existence of the imagined. So the imagined is existent and real. Wrong! For the term “security – in philosophical strictness” one can’t “buy anything”, so to speak. The term merely floats as such, as an mere idea in the spiritual heights – outside the “boundaries of the real world”. As valuable for decision-making in everyday life it correspondents to assets deposited on a planet in the Andromeda Nebula.
When we say that homeopathy has been refuted, we mean the “weak” refutation in everyday language – and we are more than extremely sure not to make a relevant mistake thereby. To limit ourselves to the “accuracy of everyday language” when the higher-quality “philosophically rigorous accuracy” is in principle – without exception – unattainable: this is not reprehensible. On the contrary, it is a necessary condition for us to be able to communicate about anything at all. If we wanted to wait for one hundred percent certainty, then we would have to remain in eternal inaction.
Author: Dr. med. Wolfgang Vahle
(1) Remark: Proofs in mathematics are created according to strict logical rules, rules that may not automatically being transferred to the “real world”. The mathematical proof e.g. that there are infinitely many prime numbers is of a completely different caliber than “proofs” in the natural sciences. The demands that mathematics makes on proofs cannot be met by the natural sciences.
Mathematicians do not even agree whether mathematics is immanently anchored in nature or whether it is a human invention that is only – completely inexplicably – capable of precisely describing natural phenomena. Mathematics itself belongs to the STEM disciplines, but it is probably not a natural science in the proper sense.
And although mathematics can prove much more by purely logical conclusions than the natural sciences by observation with theoretical reappraisal, it is also not possible for mathematics to achieve “truth” (= “correctness of assumptions”) and “logical consistency” simultaneously within an axiom system. This has been shown by the logician Kurt Gödel in his “incompleteness theorems“. Strictly formallogically true statements do not exist within a system, but only from the outside, from “higher points of view” so to speak.
And what if one is already at the “highest observer level”? Then, unfortunately, one must be content with the fact that the truth of a statement cannot be proved strictly logically furthermore. This also applies to the statements “homeopathic effects can be proven” or “homeopathic effects can be refuted”: strictly formallogically these are not possible.
(2) O.u.L. Prokop, Homöopathie und Wissenschaft (Homeopathy and Science), Stuttgart 1957 (S. 2, 31) – in German
My mistress cuddled me and wrapped me in my favourite blanket. I feel much better – and my mistress too!
The placebo effect in children – even infants – and animals does not even exist, we hear again and again. But that’s not true. It is present and is called “placebo-by-proxy”. This has been proven again and again by extensive and serious research.
The view that a placebo effect cannot occur in children and animals is probably the result of the misunderstanding that the placebo effect results from someone being “persuaded” to do something. However, the placebo effect is not something that can be compared to a targeted influence. It develops in both large and small patients as well as in animals as a physical and psychological reaction to the process of affection and positive expectations.
In infants, toddlers and even animals, the condition of the caregiver plays an enormous role. It is perceived unconsciously and intensively by the child or animal. Thus the relief of the reference person can be felt, which results alone from being able to do something for the small protégés. The child or animal does not need to know whether it is getting a real medicine or only homeopathy. But the parents/owners know it and change their expectations accordingly. Besides infants, small children and also animals are dependent on the nonverbal communication, it is vital for them. Hence also these enormously fine antennas. This “mirroring back” of the state of mind of the caregiver – this is what is meant by “by proxy”.
The term thus refers to a placebo effect “on a detour” or “via a mediator”. One always sees him at work where there is no verbal interaction with a devotion. And this is precisely where he proves to be particularly strong. For the sensory perception of infants and small children, as well as that of animals, is particularly pronounced when it comes to the reception and reflection of the basic mood of familiar reference persons. Direct linguistic communication often cannot keep up with this.
In other words, the placebo effect in nonverbal communication is not only present, but as a placebo-by-proxy it even has a special effect on the patient’s relationship with the trusted caregiver.
But one thing should always be clear: The occurrence of the placebo effect, with or without “proxy”, has nothing to do with a cure of the underlying disease. One should never be deceived when the patient feels so much better, possibly even confirmed, by the fact that one feels “better” oneself. If a wrong assessment of the effect would lead to a delay in treatment or even to its omission – that would be fatal.
… …and are homeopathy critics willing servants of the pharmaceutical industry?
Both are ineradicable narratives that we encounter daily. Behind this idea are assumptions that have simply nothing to do with reality.
And why do we tell you here a lot about it? We know very well that there are many reasons why people cling to homeopathy despite all the scientific arguments. We would also like to reach them with our information because we believe in the persuasive power of valid arguments. One of these causes and motives for believing certain positions to be “true” – as the constant references in our discussions to the “bad” pharmaceutical industry and the “good” homeopathic production show – is the story of the oppressed and the strong, which cognitively exerts a great attraction in forming opinions. At the very least, it has the function of evading important arguments and apparently taking a higher moral position. We understand that.
But this is not only a fundamental problem in the assessment of complex things and the search for a personal position, but in the case of homeopathy it is simply a grossly false assumption. We would like to substantiate this factually in the following.
First, you will not find any “partisanship” for the pharmaceutical industry anywhere in the scientifically based homeopathy criticism as advocated by INH. Homeopathic criticism does not serve individual interests but aims at an overall better medicine oriented towards the well-being of the patient.
Second, one can read again and again in many critical articles on homeopathy that it is not about “more chemistry”, but about greater confidence in the self-healing powers and the so often self-regulating natural courses of disease. Where homeopathic remedies seem to “work”, they only use the self-healing powers and contextual effects of the treatment. There, pharmaceutical drugs are usually just as superfluous as homeopathy. Where homeopathy cannot achieve anything when the self-healing powers are overtaxed, the domain of scientifically based medicine begins. This obviously has nothing to do with “pharmaceuticals instead of homeopathy”.
Third, homeopathic manufacturers consider themselves to be part of the pharmaceutical industry – and vice versa. Nobody questions each other there. This is proven by the membership of the homeopathic manufacturers in the large associations of the pharmaceutical industry. These associations themselves take the offensive for homeopathy. They maintain extensive information pages on homeopathy on their websites, and one of the large associations also operates a separate homeopathy portal.
And fourth, the pharmaceutical associations are rather unfriendly to the critics of homeopathy. One of the fiercest attacks against the 2017 statement on homeopathy by EASAC (the advisory board of the Association of European Academies of Science) comes from the German Pharmaceutical Industry Association BPI. Not only does it attempt to discredit high-ranking scientists on a personal level, the BPI comes seriously up to the statement that its “aim (…) is to strengthen the criticism of (…) scientific arguments against homeopathic products“. Read this twice. This is the statement of an association whose main business is based on stringent scientific methodology.
All this is underlined by the fact that when high-ranking representatives of the German health system criticised the eligibility of homeopathy for reimbursement by health insurance companies, these associations unanimously spoke out against any restriction of homeopathy in the public health system.
This does not sound as if one is in friendly favour of scientifically based homeopathic criticism. And so far, no one has been able to answer the counter-question of what should motivate the pharmaceutical industry to take on and reward homeopathy critics as “paid writers”, “willing servants” or what even stronger expressions there are.
Fifth, by the way: mistakes, shortcomings and scandals in the pharmaceutical industry in no way relativize homeopathic criticism and do not make homeopathy any more effective; pointing the finger at it is a diversionary tactic, it is called “whataboutism”. And sixth. many well-known homeopathy critics also repeatedly practice clear and well-founded criticism of the pharmaceutical industry and health care system in articles, interviews and books – in keeping the goal of advocating better medicine overall.
Bad pharmaceutical industry – good homeopathic manufacturers – the pseudo-moral “argument”
The seemingly moral pseudo-argument that the products of the pharmaceutical industry are responsible for thousands of deaths and additional illnesses also belongs in the realm of whataboutism: the fact that homeopathy is a complete therapeutic approach based on specifically ineffective remedies and must, therefore, itself be regarded as a potential risk is being ignored. Despite all the criticizable shortcomings (and unavoidable failures), the classical pharmaceutical industry produces many effective, often vital drugs and often moves in the drug development process on economically and medically uncertain terrain. Homeopathy, on the other hand, markets remedies that have never been able to prove a specific medicinal effect – its “research” is obsolete, since it primarily serves to self-justify its method (“confirmation research”) and is not able to produce any “progress” as a contribution to medicine.
But the power of money…
Nevertheless, advocates of homeopathy often invoke the supposed argument that “the pharmaceutical lobby” would suppress homeopathy out of purely profit-oriented self-interest. Many aspects are mixed up here, especially the general criticism of “the large corporations” with general criticism of capitalism and with the imagined counter-image of a rather romantic idea of “simple life” and “back to nature”, with “old knowledge” and “tradition”.
“Handmade” products are idealized, industrial production, on the other hand, is seen as “soulless” and thus being “demonized”. However, the fact that homeopathic manufacturers are just as much industrial businesses and large companies is completely overlooked. Homeopathy followers seem to believe that the globules are produced in small businesses – located somewhere in the countryside in untouched nature, with a herb garden just behind the house. In homeopathy advertising, it is often almost associated that globules grow on small trees and are gently stroked by fairy-like creatures.
Only reality looks completely different and offers no clue for transfiguring associations. According to the usual standards in the European Union, companies with up to 250 employees are considered so-called SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises). In any case, the most important companies producing homeopathic remedies are well above this limit.
Particularly remarkable in this sector (as for the German-speaking countries, but also with international participation) is the dominance of two groups, the Schwabe Group and Delton AG.
The Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG is the parent company of the Schwabe group with 3 600 employees and a turnover of EUR 900 million. The Schwabe Group also includes a whole series of the best-known homeopathy companies. For example the Deutsche Homöopathie-Union DHU Arzneimittel (DHU), Karlsruhe and ISO-Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG, Ettlingen. The well-known Austrian company Dr. Peithner KG is also a 100% subsidiary of the Schwabe Group.
The sole shareholder of Delton AG is Stefan Quandt. Delton AG also owns Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH, another well-known representative of the homeopathy sector. Figures from Heel can be found here, for example (2). Stefan Quandt is a member of the German entrepreneurial family of the same name, a billionaire and one of the richest Germans. The homeopathic products of these companies account for the vast majority of sales on the German market.
Of course, there are also medium-sized companies (KMU) among the homeopathic manufacturers. However, these often specialized manufacturers also achieve sales in the double-digit million range and are strictly organized as manufacturing companies, also in the above-mentioned associations.
The idyllically transfigured image of the homeopathy industry, which many globule consumers have created for themselves and which is still being fueled by homeopathy advertising, must, therefore, be described as a whitewash illusion. It’s quite simply a homeopathic industry organized according to purely economic criteria and, to a large extent, nothing more than big business.
If you also consider the raw material side of homeopathy, it becomes clear what huge profits can be made in this industry.
The fact that homeopathy must feel threatened from one side or another due to a lack of economic power can therefore easily be attributed to the realm of fairy tales and legends.
You can find the transparency declaration of the Homeopathy Information Network here.
Authors for the INH: Dipl.-Ing. Karl Payer, physicist; Udo Endruscheit
When it comes to alternative, complementary and holistic healing methods or even herbs, people like to argue with “old knowledge”. But what does that mean? Out of a conglomeration of records, traditions, old customs and the like, every self-proclaimed wellness expert or every clairvoyant herbal witch will find something appropriate and declare the remedy or procedure to be effective according to today’s criteria, because it is “old knowledge”.
“Old knowledge” contains the experiences handed down at that time, today we speak of anecdotes. Certainly, some individual experiences and anecdotes are also true according to today’s knowledge, but this cannot be generalized. The majority of them are only apparent facts. If the age of knowledge were a positive distinguishing feature, we would have to assume that the knowledge of the ancients was correct to a very high degree. Can we say this in medicine? That would be very presumptuous. The knowledge that has not proved its worth over time has been forgotten, is no longer present today and therefore we simply lack an overview. So the conclusion – old = proven and correct – is not justified.
Nevertheless, advertising is made daily for mostly outdated therapies and remedies whose effectiveness is written in the stars. Such outdated things preserve themselves by justification with “old knowledge” and the former magical ideas. However, with new knowledge, explanations look different and there is usually no evidence of their effectiveness by today’s standards.
The spectrum of “old knowledge” ranges from superstitious and magical ideas and practices to a knowledge that certain herbal preparations are indigestible to poisonous. A distinction between effects based on magical ideas and – to put it in modern terms – pharmacological effects in the modern sense, however, did not exist in the past. Magic and science were not separated. Practically experienceable effects were explained by magical ideas.
There is no doubt that there is an immense amount of written records in herbal books etc. from all millennia, in which the effects of certain herbs and other things are reported. In the light of modern pharmacology and all the factors that have to be taken into account when testing the efficacy of herbs today, however, old traditional efficacy reports are not suitable evidence to confirm efficacy in the modern sense.
The selection of medicinal plants, for example, was made according to the bold rules of symbolism, astrology, etc., and also from a religious point of view. For example, special effects were attributed to the plants, which were somehow connected with the Mother of God or the Child Jesus. Just think of all that was done to obtain healing relics.
But it is also a fact that magical ideas and actions were part of the indispensable repertoire of every healing treatment. A bleeding wound, a broken leg, headaches, fever, birth problems, numerous infections etc. were always more or less ceremonially conjured. And people were convinced that the invocation was indispensable and effective for healing. This also belongs to the “old knowledge” and cannot be separated from it.
Drugs and therapies with reasonably assessable and therefore predictable effectiveness in the modern sense have been around for not much more than 150 years. Nevertheless, it has always been possible to become healthy simply like that – with or without a placebo effect. Voltaire sharp-tongued remarked that the art of medicine is to keep the patient in good spirits until nature has cured him. And Voltaire was right to criticize the doctors and their medicine at the time, for even the highly learned Medici had no better success than the common people with their customary folk medicine. And, of course, the jugglers and charlatans were not only rather but highly successful in the marketplaces – and they still are today.
The description of the poisoning of Socrates with hemlock is in complete agreement with our assured knowledge of the effects of Conium maculatum, but there are not many such highlights. Thanks to our modern knowledge in pharmacology and pharmacognosy we can confirm the poisoning. But why Conium maculatum or Coniin is poisonous is not explained by the “old knowledge”. The factors that we know or have recognized today, which stand in the way of objectifying the effectiveness or prevent it, are not new but have always been present.
An entire health industry today is peddling highly selective “old knowledge”. Nostalgic and romantic feelings are cleverly stirred up and served. Everything in the past is declared as “natural” and “biological”. But – every knowledge must be verifiable at any time by anyone (intersubjectivity). Only in this way can further development take place. However, the so-called knowledge from experience is limited to the highest degree. It depends on the level of knowledge and the degree of critical scepticism with which these experiences were gained.
Of course, there is also valid (but often expandable) old knowledge, e.g. in geometry the theorem of Thales, which says that all angles on the semicircular arc are right angles or the Pythagorean theorem that the sum of the areas of the squares over the two catheters is equal to the square area of the hypotenuse. Only in medicine is such knowledge, which has lasted until today, very rare.
Conclusion: Old knowledge is ultimately an argument based on (past, historical, handed down) “authority”. And that counts scientifically – nothing at all. And especially in homeopathy, 200 years after Hahnemann, we simply own much better knowledge today.
(The author Dr. Edmund Berndt, member of the Information Network Homeopathy, is retired pharmacist living in Austria)
Tooth eruption (dentition) begins in most babies in the 6th month of life and is a painful process. Before a tooth reaches the light of the oral cavity, it first has to fight its way through the periosteum of the bone and then break through the oral mucosa (the gingiva). The periosteum is very sensitive to pain – we all know this from the shin bone – but the oral mucosa is much less sensitive. Tooth eruption can be accompanied by general symptoms such as fever and malaise.
Tooth eruption can be made somewhat easier by using biting aids (teething rings etc.). In the worst case, the pain can be reduced with a locally acting agent (local anaesthetic as a gel or ointment). Sometimes the administration of pain suppositories is recommended. But in all cases the certainty that it will pass will help. Loving care is always helpful.
However, there is no proof of effectiveness for homeopathic dental remedies (e.g. Chamomilla, complex preparations). Homeopathic dentistry neither influences the intensity of pain in the area of the periosteum, nor does it accelerate the speed at which the teeth break through.
In recent weeks, reports have also been circulating from the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (“FDA to Parents: Don’t Give Your Kids Homeopathic Teething Tablets”), which warned against homeopathic remedies for teething problems. As early as October 2010, the FDA warned consumers against the use of homeopathic teething tablets containing belladonna after reports of symptoms of belladonna poisoning in young children became known and the FDA found “inconsistent levels” of belladonna in the preparations and criticized the lack of child-proofing of the containers. According to the manufacturer’s label, the preparations at that time contained belladonna in a potency of D3, i.e. still with an active substance concentration at which a physiological effect could not be ruled out.
The products were recalled and, following a “revision of the production process”, were reintroduced into the product ranges in 2011.
Over the next six years, the FDA received a further 400 or so reports of children with disease characteristics typical of belladonna. Ten of these reports were fatalities. There were also a large number of consumer complaints in this regard, although it may be difficult to establish more than one temporal connection between the complaints and the use of the preparations in retrospect.
Due to the large number of complaints since the first warning in 2010, the FDA started a formal investigation into homeopathic dentistry products on 9 September 2016. A new FDA warning on these remedies was issued on 30 September 2016. According to the manufacturer, the current remedies contained Belladonna D6 and D12, respectively. In this dilution no effect / side effect would have been possible even with an overdose. On 27 January 2017, however, the FDA confirmed that, according to their laboratory analyses, the homeopathic preparations again contained “inconsistent amounts of belladonna […], some of which exceeded the amount stated on the label”.
Author: dentist Dr. med. dent. Hans-Werner Bertelsen
Samuel Christian Friedrich Hahnemann. Line engraving by L. B Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images: images@wellcome.ac.uk / http://wellcomeimages.org
In 1755 a devastating earthquake destroyed Lisbon, the British-French war over North America raged and on 10 April Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann was born in Meissen (Triebischvorstadt) as the third child of the porcelain painter Christian Gottfried and his wife Johanna Christine Hahnemann. Of course, it was not yet foreseeable that this little innocent child would invent the greatest hoax of medicine: homeopathy. In his birthplace Meissen, little Samuel went first to the city school and then with a scholarship to the “Fürstenschule St. Afra”.
From 1775 he studied medicine in Leipzig, earning his living as a translator (for many medical texts) and language teacher. Another station of his studies was Vienna, where he stayed for a good three quarters of a year, until he got a job as librarian and personal physician with the new imperial governor of Transylvania, Baron Samuel von Brukenthal. He therefore spent the next two years in Hermannstadt (today Sibiu), where he was also admitted to the Masonic Lodge “Zu den drei Seeblättern” (The Three Lake Leaves).
In 1779 he received his doctorate at the University of Erlangen. He not only worked as a doctor, but also as a chemist, translator and writer. He also often changed his place of residence and moved through numerous North and Central German cities, whereby his medical success oscillated between practice closures and complete overworking. He also continued his chemical experiments, his greatest success probably being the “Hahnemann wine test”. With this small experiment one could see whether a wine was mixed with toxic lead sugar. The Prussian government prescribed this wine tasting to the Berlin wine merchants by law.
In 1782 Hahnemann married the daughter of the Hettstedt pharmacist, Johanna Leopoldine Henriette Küchler, who was to give him eleven children in rapid succession.
The list of Hahnemann’s family’s places of residence until 1796 is long: Gommern – Dresden – Lockwitz – Leipzig – Stötteritz – Gotha – Königslutter – Moschleben – Göttingen – Pyrmont – Wolfenbüttel – Braunschweig. On average he moved every year, which was mainly due to the economic possibilities of the individual places. However, there were also often disputes with pharmacists, since the doctor Hahnemann also hired himself out as a chemist and pharmacist and thus poached in foreign territories. Thus the “Leipzig Dispense Controversy” (see below) is also a prominent example.
His changing occupations also gave him insights into more exotic areas of his profession. In Dresden, for example, he supported the city physician, which gave him insight into the forensic medicine of the time. This is also reflected in his memorandum on arsenic poisoning.
In Stötteritz, a suburb of Leipzig, in 1790 Hahnemann translated the two-volume pharmacopoeia of the Scottish physician William Cullen and in a footnote Hahnemann reported for the first time on his own experiment with cinchona bark. This can be regarded as the first step towards the development of homeopathy.
That Hahnemann had a quite good reputation at the beginning of the 1790s is also shown by the memberships in the “Churfürstlich Mayntzische Academie nützlicher Wissenschaften” in Erfurt (1791) and in the “Gelehrtenakademie Leopoldina” (1793).
From 1792 to 1793 he was in charge of a “Recovery Institute for about 4 insane persons from wealthy houses”, which was founded by the publisher Becker in Gotha.
Three years later, after publishing his successful pharmacist encyclopedia in two volumes, he publicly formulated his theory about the healing method he had devised for the first time. This was in an article published in 1796 in “Hufeland’s Journal of Practical Medicines” entitled “Versuch über ein neues Princip zur Auffindung der Heilkräfte der Arzneysubstanzen, nebenst einigen Blicken auf die bisherigen” (“Experiment with a new principle to find the healing powers of the medicinal substances, together with some insights into the previous ones”). Here we also find for the first time the theorem that similar should be cured with something similar.
In Altona (1799) and Mölln (1800), where he moved next, he had no great luck with his undertakings. In Altona a “powder” failed, which should prevent the infection with scarlet fever and in Mölln he sold borax under the name “neues Laugensalz”. This was discovered and he had to refund the money he had earned.
Machern – Eilenburg – Schildau. Again frequent moves between 1801 and 1803. In this time one finds the first reports about homeopathic treatments in his patient journals. In his essay “Ueber die Kraft kleiner Gaben der Arzneien überhaupt und der Belladonna insbesondere” (“On the Power of Small Gifts of Medicines in General and of the Belladonna in Particular”, published in Hufeland’s Magazine), he further deepened his theory.
In 1805, when he lived in Torgau, he used the term homeopathy for the first time. This in an essay that also was published by Hufeland: “Pointer to the homeopathic use of remedies in previous practice”. Also first books appeared, like the “Heilkunde der Erfahrung” (“Medicine with Experience”), a forerunner of the “Organon der Heilkunst”, first published in 1810.
Also at this time his book “Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum positivis sive in sano corpore observatis” was published, in English “Fragments on the safe medicinal powers or those observed on the healthy body”. Both books are interesting in so far as they describe his self- and external experiments.
In 1810 the first edition of “Organon der rationellen Heilkunde” (from the second edition on named “Organon der Heilkunst”) appeared, which is still the “Bible” of homeopaths today. Due to the presumptuous and polemical tenor of this work, some controversial discussions were ignited. One year later, the “Reine Arzneimittellehre” (Materia medica pura) was published for the first time, in which drug testing on healthy people was presented.
In 1812 Hahnemann habilitated at the University of Leipzig and began to give lectures on homeopathy. He also continued his drug experiments, mainly with his students. However, his work for homeopathy was not only met with approval at that time and soon Hahnemann was involved in extensive academic discourses.
Hahnemann also sought confrontation in other areas. Although the Leipzig pharmacists had the privilege to produce pharmaceuticals, he insisted on producing his own preparations – after which he was sued by three pharmacists. The trial ended with a settlement according to which the pharmacists retained their privilege and Hahnemann was only allowed to take action in an emergency or in rural communities. This process went down in history as the “Leipzig Dispense Controversy”.
Hahnemann, of course, wasn’t pleased of this at all and so he moved to Köthen in 1821, where the Duke of Anhalt-Köthen granted him a privilege for self-dispensing. The first edition of the “Chronic Diseases”, a not undisputed work even among homeopathy fans, also fell into the Köthen period, as Hahnemann introduced the idea of “miasms” for the first time in this work. Hahnemann here for the first time formulated the idea that potentiation should happen by shaking during the dilution steps. He hoped that this would lead to the production of preparations free of side effects.
During his time in Köthen, Hahnemann revised the organon twice. In these two editions, Hahnemann also for the first time advocated the idea that an immaterial vital force of the organism was the origin of the Simile principle. This idea, too, was not shared by all his followers. In general it remains to be said that in the 1830s the battles for direction within the homeopaths increased strongly and Hahnemann often expressed himself quite drastically about his “opponents”.
In 1830 his wife died and at the end of 1834 he met the French painter Mélanie d’Hervilly in his practice. Both fell in love with each other and their wedding in Hahnemann’s house after only a few weeks on January 18, 1835 provided a topic of conversation in Köthen society. At 34, the bride was 45 years younger than the groom. The fact that the wedding was held in a private ceremony without church blessing also cheered on the gossip.
In 1835 Hahnemann and his new wife moved to Paris, where he opened a homeopathic practice – just like in Köthen. Hahnemann worked here on the sixth edition of the Organon, which he finished in 1842. Here he introduced the Q potencies, which included dilution steps of 1:50,000.
Samuel Hahnemann died on 2 July 1843 in Paris, where he is still buried today. The sixth edition of his Organon, however, was first published by Richard Haehl in 1921 due to disputes between Mélanie Hahnemann and her husband’s students.
Author: Michael Scholz
Picture credits: Samuel Christian Friedrich Hahnemann. Line engraving by L. Beyer after J. Schoppe, senior, 1831.
Copyrighted work available under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
(This contribution describes the legal situation in Germany which currently applies to the reimbursement of homeopathy by the statutory health insurance.)
Rather confused, one would say…
Unfortunately the health insurances do this indeed, even if one hardly considers it possible. Because the legislator allows the health insurance companies the reimbursement of homeopathy.
This is caused by the difference between regular reimbursements based on law and additional permissible reimbursements based on the insurance’s own stating orders.
First of all, you have to know what the regular reimbursements of a statutory health insurance company are. Those are the reimbursements for therapies, methods and means approved by the Federal Joint Committee (an independent institution of the self-administration of the German health system) for which proof of effectiveness has been provided. This must pay each health insurance company according to § 12 of the Social Code V under consideration of the principles “sufficiently, expediently and economically”.
The same § 12 stipulates that benefits that are not necessary or not economical may not be claimed by insured persons, not provided by healthcare providers and not approved by health insurance funds. That would not belong then to the regular reimbursements.
In view of this, how does it come now nevertheless to the fact that in the meantime more than 75 per cent of the legal health insurance companies take over costs for homeopathy?
For that one must know, what “additional permissible reimbursements” are. This is what the Ministry of Health itself says on its website:
“Additional permissible benefits are those that a health insurance company can provide in addition to the statutory benefits. Those benefits are generally at the discretion of the health insurance funds (based on the company’s own bylaws) and can be used for competition between the health insurance funds. Insofar as they exist, the health insurance fund is bound by its own bylaws vis-à-vis all insured persons”.
The instrument of additional permissible benefits has existed for some time by legal authorisation. However, it only became exciting with a legal amendment in 2012, the 3rd SHI Care Structure Act, which greatly expanded the catalogue of possible additional permissible benefits.
The Trojan Horse
These permissilbe benefits are something like the Trojan horse for means and methods which, according to the clear statement of the Social Code V, should actually be excluded from the statutory benefits.
Two of the things that were allowed as statutory services in 2012 were the reimbursement of over-the-counter medications and the reimbursement of services provided by “other health service providers”.
It is well known that homeopathic remedies in Germany are medicinal products by law – because of the unspeakable “internal consensus”, not because of scientific proofs of efficacy. They share this privilege with anthroposophical and phytotherapeutic remedies. And here it is important to understand:
Homeopathic remedies as such have never been excluded from reimbursement. After all, they are medicines by law. But: practically all of them are available over the counter – and the over the counter medicines were completely excluded from reimbursement by the SHI in one of the legislator’s cost containment rounds in 2004. It was not because of the dubious homeopathy method that the health insurance funds were prevented from reimbursing homeopathy until 2012, but only because all over-the-counter medicines had been exempt from reimbursement since 2004. With a few exceptions, especially for children and adolescents up to a certain age. And in fact: for this group of persons costs for prescribed homeopathic medication has been reimbursed for years and days and to this day as regular benefits!
And with the reimbursability of services provided by “other health service providers”, the door also opened for the reimbursement of medical homeopathic services, for which there simply were no billing figures until now. The Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians, via its marketing company, concluded so-called selective contracts with the health insurance funds, which stipulated that medical homeopathic services could be invoiced at special rates outside the normal SHI budgeting. (The idea of selective contracts was intended to ensure better care for the chronically ill, but – like so much else – has long since spread to completely different areas).
And so the regulations of the 3rd SHI Care Structure Act, without the word “homeopathy” even appearing anywhere in them, had become the “Trojan horse” with which homeopathy could establish itself in statutory health insurance.
And this should make one thing clear to us: An end to health insurance reimbursement as a statutory benefit would only be a “stage victory” for homeopathy criticism, an actuarial process, so to speak. The barn door of the medicinal property with which homeopathy is placed within medicine remains open. And thus also the possibility of turning the whole thing around again at some point through a legal or insurance process. As long as homeopathy is not equal to all other medicines in the approval procedure, but is preferential treated by the “internal consensus” the basic problem remains unsolved.
Competition – with what?
This all is already a rather confused matter. Why extends is the legislator the catalogue of additional permissible reimbursements in this way?
Well, the underlying thought was the introduction of “competition” between the insurance companies. (Important: Unlike as in the UK, in Germany namely exists a unified system of SHI, but divided into a number of separate insurance companies based on civil law; a unified organisation like the NHS doesn’t exist.) Competition within the framework of the regular reimbursements was not possible, competition over the contribution rate and over rationalisation inventions was practically exhausted in 2012. The idea of effectiveness competition has undoubtedly also had an effect, as can be seen from the significant reduction in the number of statutory health insurance funds. And so the legislator invented an offer competition, pure marketing with a colourful vendor’s tray of “benefits” for the potential customer, especially the wellness oriented, consistently healthy “midage generation”.
This happened in 2012 beyond the regular reimbursements by the extended catalogue of additional permissible benefits. And homeopathy was at the top of the wish list – both the homeopathic lobby and the health insurers, who saw it to be lucrative in competiting new “customers”.
Marketing takes precedence over effectiveness
Due to the already existing “popularity” of homeopathy and the busy lobbying of the usual suspects, the health insurance funds began to outbid each other by assuming the costs of this ineffective method – with the blessing of the legislator, under the supervision of the responsible departments and institutions and – very importantly – at the expense of all contributors to the respective fund. Because there is no election or additional tariff offered (there was once such in the SHI; however, ist was 2018 abolished because only some 500 insured persons remained), but the statutory tariff for regular benefit plus additional permissible achievements has to be payed by each member equally.
Even the homeopathy lobby was apparently somewhat surprised by this performance of the legislator. Even the then chairwoman of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians stated in astonishment: “For the health insurance funds, this is probably a marketing instrument to set themselves apart within competition”. There is little to nothing to be added.
Conclusion
On a broad front – i.e. with about three quarters of the statutory health insurance funds – the money of all contributors is spent with the blessing of the legislator predominantly for marketing reasons for the ineffective method “homeopathy”. From the point of view of a rationally thinking insured person, this can actually only be seen as an embezzlement of his contribution money. From the point of view of homeopathy lobbyists and, in many cases, of the insurance companies themselves, one usually hears that “people want that” or “demand is high”. What a wrong way in the truest sense of the word. To put it nicely, the legislator has obviously set the wrong incentives, as one would say in economics. To put it mildly, social insurance offers little room for competition and marketing, especially not with medically worthless means and methods. It is a community based on solidarity in which other principles have to stand in the foreground.
Learn more at us: Read why the cash insurances may not pay glasses and higher subsidies for dental prosthesis at all and why these may not be exchanged against homeopathy therefore according to valid right – and why substantial doubts exist whether the reimbursement for homeopathy really goes despite medicinal property and legalized permissible benefits is in fact legal.
The so-called “Schuessler salts” are often equated or confused with homeopathy. However, they do not go back to Hahnemann, but to the Oldenburg physician Wilhelm Heinrich Schüßler (1821 to 1898).
Biographical
Schüßler can easily be described as a “dazzling figure” of his time. Actually a secretary by profession, from 1849 he taught foreign languages. Although he had not passed his high school diploma, he had the opportunity to begin medical studies in Paris, which he continued in Berlin and Giessen. His doctorate was also somewhat unusual. Since he pretended to be called up shortly as a military doctor, the university did without a dissertation and only held an examination interview and (after all, one was in Prussia) the examination fees were charged.
Only when Schüßler wanted to take the medical state examination, which was a prerequisite for the granting of the regular license to practise medicine, the lack of the Abitur became a problem. The administrative authority did not accept this any longer and demanded that the examination had to made up for. It was at first in 1857 that he was able to take the medical state examination. This examination was a somewhat mediocre success for him, but he passed and was able to settle as a doctor in his home town of Oldenburg in January 1858. For this, however, he needed a municipal concession, which he received only because he undertook to work exclusively as a homeopathic physician.
He had some success with the practice, probably due to the fact that he demanded very low fees. In other sources it is said that he had given away the required homeopathic remedies free of charge. Three years after his establishment, in 1861, he joined the “Centralverein homöopathischer Ärzte” (Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors).
Schüßler’s “Biochemical Healing Method”
In the first 15 years of his practice he developed a shortened form of homeopathy, which he presented in 1873 in the memorandum “Eine abgekürzte Therapie gegründet auf Histologie und Cellularpathologie” (“An abbreviated therapy based on histology and cellular pathology”). He called his form of therapy the “Biochemical Healing Method”. The basic assumption of this therapy is that diseases are caused solely by disturbances of the mineral balance in the body cells and thus disturb the entire metabolism. The salts were potentiated as in homeopathy, because Schüßler meant that only in this way could the “ions” penetrate directly into the interior of the cell. This should be supplemented by a special diet to eliminate the mineral deficiencies outside the cell in order to establish the balance between the cell’s interior and exterior. Schüßler believed that a pathogenic stimulus would stimulate the individual cells so massive that the defence reaction would be so energy-intensive that the cell would deplete its mineral reserves.
Schüßler reduced the more than thousand homeopathic remedies known at the time to 12 functional remedies. In his opinion, this should be the mineral salts that would remain when a human body is burned.
Whereby Schüßler himself removed the calcium sulphate from the list in 1895. In its place sodium phosphate and Silicea should be used.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Schüßler’s exegetes added 15 supplements to these original 11 (resp. 12) salts, and later seven “biochemical agents”.
Although Schüßler produced his salts by potentiation, he strongly distinguished himself from homeopathy, as he rejected Samuel Hahnemann’s principle of similarity for his “biochemical healing method” in favour of physiological-chemical processes in the body (this idea was indeed a step away from Hahnemann’s vitalist-esoteric assumptions of a “deranged vital force” in the direction of natural science, but pure speculation and a complete misinterpretation of cellular processes and their participation in disease processes). On this basis he denied the effectiveness of potentiated means propagated by Hahnemann. These statements were the basis for a long dispute with other homeopaths, which led to Schüßler’s resignation from the “Centralverein homöopathischer Ärzte” in 1876.
Wilhelm Schüßler based his diagnoses on the so-called “facial diagnosis”. He thus claimed that one could recognize the respective mineral deficiency by different signs in the face of a person. (A procedure that of course lacks any scientific basis – then as now.)
This “facial diagnosis” was further developed by Kurt Hickethier, a layman interested in alternative medicine, under the name “Sonnerschau” and is still used by alternative practitioners today.
The effectiveness of the Schuessler Salts was examined several times, however, no pharmacological effect could be determined. What had been expectable. The Stiftung Warentest (a German consumer protection organisation) comes to the following conclusion in its publication “The other Medicine”: “Schüßler’s biochemistry is not suitable for the treatment of diseases”.
More about Schüßler also on our Homöopedia (in German)
In the pharmacy all kinds of homeopathic globules are available for sale. They are also strongly promoted by the manufacturers with the attributes “gentle and natural“. Above all, “simple and side-effect-free” self-treatment is recommended again and again. There are many books on the subject (guidebook, “Quickfinder”) and the majority of homeopathic remedies are recommended on the basis of word-of-mouth propaganda (“With my cold I recently had super remedy XY helped, try it yourself!”). This was clearly confirmed by the results of an Allensbach survey conducted in Germany in 2014. According to the information given there, 67 percent of those questioned named the “advice of friends, family and acquaintances” as the “way to homeopathic medicines”.
In spite of all this, consumers do not know (and manufacturers, vendors and even homeopaths do not tell them) that there is little that contradicts Hahnemann’s method more than self-treatment with globules.
What does homeopathic doctrine say?
As already explained in another context, Hahnemann’s method does not deal with diseases, but with symptoms. The method requires that the correct remedy be selected from the repertories, i.e. the directories in which the symptom pictures are assigned to the homeopathic remedies, for a patient’s symptom pictures that has been created with great care. All this is the task of the physician, the “experienced healing artist”. Incidentally, a remedy with only a single original substance (homeopathic stock) must be determined. Hahnemann clearly rejected remedies that were produced with several substances, so-called complex remedies, and most classical homeopaths still do so today.
The path to the symptom picture leads through the homeopathic anamnesis, the well-known therapeutic conversation, in which all, even the very slightest, sensitivities are to be recorded by the therapist in the highest possible differentiation and condensed into a closed symptom picture. From the point of view of homeopathy, this simply serves to determine the patient’s “symptom bundle”, which is then decisive for the selection of the individual remedy. It is understandable that this requires the “experienced therapist”, at least someone who is thoroughly familiar with Hahnemann’s method in practice. The Organon, the Bible of homeopaths, for example, says this:
“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.” (§ 6 Organon, only symptoms are perceptible, not diseases – 6th edition, translated by Boericke).
“Now, as in a disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (…) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it – and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease (…) and thus, in a word, the totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health.” (§ 7 Organon, the symptom picture is the main task for the healing artist – 6th edition, translated by Boericke).
Self-medication? Diagnosis of colds, stomach pains, headaches, general malaise? All this is unthinkable according to Hahnemann’s system. Healing artists, it’s your effort!
A little history
Homeopathy is, on the one hand, strict dogmatism, in the sense of Hahnemann’s “Follow it, but follow it exactly!” On the other hand, homeopaths are the greatest possible pragmatists, q.e.d. But that has been the case for a long time – and it has also been the subject of criticism for a long time. Already during Hahnemann’s lifetime there was self-medication and recommendations, mainly because homeopathic doctors were few and far between and travel possibilities were very limited. At the end of the 19th century homeopathy was firmly established as “lay medicine”. There were plenty of guide books and homeopathic pharmacies. Around 1890 one could read that “the lay activity in matters of homeopathy would be given for historical reasons, inseparably grown together with the latter”. Important homeopaths such as Hering (“Hering`s Rule”) wrote guidebook literature, Arthur Lutze maintained a considerable international distribution of homeopathic pharmacies (Baschin, Die Geschichte der Selbstmedikation in der Homöopathie; Quellen und Studien zur Homöopathiegeschichte / History of Self-medication in Homeopathy: Sources and Studies on History of Homeopathy; Volume 17, Essen 2012).
These historical reminiscences, however, do not, of course, legitimise self-treatment: Hahnemann himself did not change a single word in his teaching building, nobody else did ever so; Hahnemann’s writings are still regarded as untouchable down to the last letter. How one can endure this cognitive dissonance (which should actually have led the classical homeopaths to the demand to forbid the free sale of homeopathy) is an almost admirable achievement… or perhaps unquestioned “habit”?
Four-fifths of homeopathic remedies sold in Germany are sold “over the counter”
How is that possible? Regardless of Hahnemann, whose teaching is declaredly sacrosanct, today globules without a homeopathic anamnesis are bought like sweets (good comparison actually …), disease names instead of symptom pictures are used as indications for the administration of globules, complex remedies are taken according to the manufacturer’s recommendation (better: manufacturer’s advertising), according to the advice of the neighbour or one’s own taste – and this is then also sold here and there as progress of the method. That’s isn’t it in no way! Therefore not, because this “progress” is not connected with systematic criticism, not with any extension of the horizon of knowledge, with a logical extension under rejection as old, as incorrectly recognized knowledge and under addition as new, as correctly recognized knowledge. Self-medication, treatment for illnesses instead of symptoms, and complex remedies are – among other things – only more watering down of Hahnemann’s method, which in addition produce even more inconsistencies than are already inherent in it. And all this without anyone ever changing a single letter of Hahnemann’s “holy scriptures”…
Where is the “individual method” when Mrs. Smith can simply buy globules for her stomach problems in the pharmacy? Perhaps Mrs. Smith would like to take a look at one of the great repertories and try to find the right globule under “stomach complaints”? Well – maybe not. The entries with stomach complaints are numerous – combined, however, with a myriad of symptoms that have occurred “simultaneously” with stomach pain at some point during a homeopathic drug test. Of course, confusion or helplessness would then prevail, because so many remedies could fit, or none at all. And so Mrs. Smith will probably give it up … But then it becomes even more difficult than it already is. Because then in fact the guessing actually begins, which is rationalized afterwards (“Last time the Chamomilla helped so well, so I try them again”, “With Mrs. Baker XYZ helped, then I take that”, “I don’t know any of the offered remedies, I decide according to my feeling”, “I choose intuitively”). By the way – Hahnemann himself scourged with strong words the “mistake” that even “experienced therapists” apparently out of habit and instinct often resort to “proven means” instead of exact repertorization. Whenever an improvement occurs afterwards, Mrs. Smith is subject to the post-hoc-ergo-procter-hoc fallacy and not to the effects of the chosen homeopathic remedy. And it is thus subject to a completely natural human perception disorder, which is very difficult to recognize – and even more difficult to accept, because we are programmed evolutionarily to “fast thinking” on the basis of appearances. Only one thing Mrs. Müller did not receive: effective medical treatment.
Authors: Udo Endruscheit and Dr. med. Natalie Grams
Water lilies grow on a lake and their surface area increases tenfold every day. After nine days the lake is completely overgrown. How much of its surface is covered after eight days? (Solution at the end)
What does that have to do with homeopathy? Quite a lot. A central feature of homeopathic remedies is their potentiation, i.e. the multiple dilution of the initial substances. This is based on the pre-scientific idea that the more diluted a substance is, the stronger its effect. In each step, the original substance in which the selected material was dissolved is diluted with the solvent (distilled water or ethanol) in a prescribed procedure and shaken.
The abbreviation D (Latin decem = ten) for homeopathic remedies refers to the tenfold dilution at each step, the abbreviation C (Latin centum = hundred) to the hundredfold. The number behind D or C indicates the number of dilution steps. D6 – a frequently used “potency” – therefore means one part of original substance per one million parts of solvent.
If we translate this into the volume of liquids, we get a ratio of one drop (one millilitre) to seven bathtubs full to the brim (1,000 litres). This means that the solution still contains detectable amounts of the original substance. Whether these are physiologically effective, however, can rightly be doubted. D12 is now not a double dilution like D6 – and certainly not the double effectiveness -, but the one million higher dilution. Even with small differences in the numbers it is often forgotten that about D7 represents ten times the dilution of D6, D8 one hundred times.
If we now want to produce a product with the potency D12, we take a drop from one of our seven bathtubs with D6 and distribute it evenly over a further seven bathtubs with water. If this liquid is not marketed as a drop – which use alcohol as a solvent and are diluted with water again before ingestion – we then spray it with a factor of 1 to 100 (0.1 gram solution on 10 grams of globules) onto sugar globules and let them dry. Our homeopathic remedy D12 would then be ready for sale.
The problem with the term “potentiation” is that “potency” has a different meaning in colloquial language as in science than in homeopathy, namely from the Latin word potentia “power, strength, ability”. In pharmacology, for example, the potency of a substance describes its potency, substances with higher potency work in lower concentrations than those with lower potency. In homeopathy, the meaning is exactly the opposite; the higher the potency, the less the initial substance is contained – not a single molecule at D23 at the latest.
For D23, by the way, you would need a quantity of water to dilute one gram of basic substance, which corresponds to the content of the Pacific and Indian Oceans together. In practice, however, nine tenths of the solution are simply poured away before each dilution step.
Potentiation therefore does not mean that the agents with a higher dilution are more effective, more “potent”, but that, on the contrary, they contain a factor of ten (or even one hundred) less active substance from step to step and therefore, according to all scientific criteria, cannot have a pharmacological effect. (And why there is no “energy” during potentiation, read here.)
Exponential growth or exponential atrophy are processes that are difficult to grasp intuitively. We can hardly imagine doubling (2n …) or tenfold (10n …) at each individual step, or an exponential decrease as in homeopathic dilution (10n …), after each step only one tenth of the initial substance is left). We are practically always wrong about such nonlinear developments if we have to estimate the results after only a few steps. In everyday life we encounter these developments, for example, in compound interest: we always underestimate the development of a credit that bears interest annually, including the interest accrued to date, over a longer period of time: At an interest rate of 5 % in 50 years, € 1,000 will become € 11467.40. If we were to consider only the annual interest rate of € 50 without the compound interest effect, it would only be € 3,500.
Exponential is therefore a function in which there is a percentage change in each step compared with the previous position. Each change affects the following.
For example, it only takes nine days to decimate one billion euros to one euro if your assets are only one tenth of the value of the previous day every day. Such a loss in value occurs in hyperinflation, where money has less purchasing power every day.
It is just as difficult for people to imagine very large or very small numbers and quantities. For example, people like to confuse millions and billions, the latter being a thousand times larger. Example: It takes almost three years to accumulate one billion euros if you get one million euros every day. For a trillion (10 to the power of 12) one would have to multiply the period by 1,000. 3,000 years ago the biblical King David lived, so you would have to have received one million euros a day since his birth. Even larger or smaller numbers can practically no longer be grasped intuitively, also because they do not occur in our everyday perception.
P.S.: The answer to the question at the beginning is: On the eighth day, one tenth of the water surface is covered with water lilies, on the seventh with one percent.
More about potentiation in our Homöopedia (in German)
Edward Bach was a doctor from Birmingham, England, who studied medicine at the University College Hospital in London and graduated from Cambridge. Before he began his studies, however, he worked in the family brass foundry. Bach saw the source of diseases mainly in psychological causes or in the intestines.
Bach Flower Remedies in the typical “Stock Bottles”
After leaving some real clinical positions behind, he worked from 1918 at the London Homeopathic Hospital, which he left again in 1920 in favour of a private practice. One of his main areas in the Homeopathic Hospital was the extraction of so-called “nosodes”, which are homeopathic remedies obtained from pathological endogenous substances such as blood or pus.
In 1930, however, he closed his practice again in order to devote himself to observing nature and herbal medicine in Wales. Here his principle that illnesses are only the expression of a conflict between soul and mind became firmly established. On 27 November 1936 Bach, just 50 years old, died of heart failure.
About the system
The system Bach came up with is relatively simple. He took a mental misfeeling, such as “mental stress and tension” and assigned him a plant essence. This plant essence in turn should harmonize the vibrations of the patient with the cosmic energy field through its vibrations and thus heal the disease. Bach put together a total of 37 flower essences as well as an essence from rock spring water and a combination of five essences, which is probably the best known product under the term “Rescue remedy”.
The selection of plants for the negative mental states was purely intuitive, with Bach assuming that a divine inspiration guided him in his selection. However, the main criterion for selection was that the plants correspond with the concept of archetypes in the sense of Carl Gustav Jung. The flower essences still bear English names today, as a kind of homage to their inventor.
About the production
At the beginning of the production of its essences Bach used only the dew that was on the flowers of each plant at sunrise. The morning sun, which shone through dew and blossom, was to enrich the water with the vibrations of the plant. Thus, as in homeopathy, the assumed healing power is based on the non-existent water memory. As his flower essences became more and more successful, Bach was no longer able to meet the demand with dew drops alone and devised two other ways of preparing the essences.
The first of these is the so-called “sun method”, in which the freshly picked flowers are placed in about half a litre of water and stand in the blazing sun for three to four hours. In Bach’s imagination the vibrations of the plants are transferred to the water as healing energy. This part of the production is strongly ritualized by Bach’s regulations. So the plants have to be collected before nine o’clock in the morning on a sunny and cloudless day. The places where the plants have to be picked are also specified.
After these three to four hours the treated water is diluted 1:1 with 40% alcohol (formerly brandy or cognac). This is for conservation purposes. This mixture is now the mother tincture, which must be diluted again in the ratio 1:240 with alcohol in order to produce the “effective” essences. The end user must dilute the essence again in water in order to take it.
The second method is the so-called “cooking method”, in which the plants do not stand in the sun but emit their vibrations during a 30-minute cooking process. The further treatment is then the same. This method is usually only used for very woody plants or for autumn and winter bloomers.
About the application
Bach flowers are not only available as drops, but also as ointments, sweets, chewing gums, globules, teas, sprays, etc. There are also Bach flowers for animals. The classic dosage form, however, is that of the “stockbottles” with a content of 10 ml.
The “right” essence can be found by going to a Bach flower consultant or a non-medical practitioner, swinging out the essences yourself, using a guidebook or selecting the plants purely intuitively on the basis of their appearance.
About the effectiveness
Bach died in 1936 and his doctrine was forgotten. It was not until the great esoteric wave of the 1970s that it became known again. Since then, several clinical studies have been carried out, but none of them have shown any effect.
Today, flower mixtures are also offered which are outside the canon of Edward Bach. Special attention was given, for example, to an essence that should be used in the case of child abuse. After strong protests, this essence was taken off the market. With homeopathy they have only the magic thinking in common – but they are often confused or equated with it and are considered “particularly natural or vegetable”. Especially esoteric would be more appropriate.
We find it particularly problematic that Bach’s remedies are mainly used for psychological complaints (e.g. anxiety, loneliness, panic attacks, examination anxiety, trauma, depression, weariness, thoughts of death) and can thus delay or even prevent necessary psychological or psychiatric therapies. Moreover, their widespread and uncritical use conveys that for such serious diagnoses it is sufficient to take “a few little blossoms” and everything is fine again.
Animal homeopathy is widespread and highly praised. At Google the term achieves nearly 100,000 hits (retrieved 20.08.2019). But it is a building that was first constructed by Hahnemann’s successors. There is only a short text of his own, never published by him, in which he suggests the idea of carrying out or setting up drug tests and materia medica for animals as well. He himself did not come back to it – but his exegetes started with animal homeopathy already during his lifetime. Today, however, the services of homeopathic animal therapists can be found everywhere.
We can probably assume that Hahnemann was aware of the following problems and therefore had the insight to refrain from establishing an animal homeopathy himself, which did not prevent some of his successors from doing so. In order to prevent misunderstandings – of course homeopathy as a whole is a misguided building of ideas, here it is above all a matter of demonstrating the nonsense of the ” Add-On ” of animal homeopathy even in the homeopathic framework.
The physiology of animals is very different from that of humans, and also within animal breeds. Many diseases in the animal kingdom occur only species-specifically at all, which presupposes an enormous differentiation with the collection of disease pictures. At Hahnemann’s time, animal-specific diseases were of course already known, but they could not yet be interpreted in terms of a different physiology.
Therefore, a completely new basis would have been needed in addition to the homeopathic method for humans: drug testing on animals, animal-specific Materia Medica and homeopathic anamnesis on animals. Apart from the fact that this should have been done individually for each animal breed, would this have been affordable according to the requirements of the Organon? This question will have to be answered in the negative. Nevertheless – drug tests were carried out on “healthy animals”, already around the middle of the 19th century. It is hardly conceivable what misguided things were produced by that.
How can a homeopathic anamnesis be carried out in animals, especially in completely different species, as a detailed overall picture of the physical, mental and spiritual condition of the patient, including all the smallest details of its symptoms, as required by the “Organon”, the homeopath’s “holy book”? The same applies, of course, to drug testing, which is only a reflection of the patient’s anamnesis on the basis of the most accurate recording of the smallest impairment of well-being in the test person. After all, the animal is not in a position to provide as detailed information as the method requires. Many symptoms of veterinary diseases are characterized anyway by the fact that they appear very late openly.
The practicing animal homoeopaths – in contrast to their spiritus rector – showed so little insight into these problems that until today people were content with more than poor constructions. This is the case to the extent that drug testing as well as anamnestic surveys were and are carried out in the absence of linguistic communication through “observation” of the animal and, if necessary, questioning of the animal owner (modern expression for this: anamnesis by proxy). It is not apparent that the Organon’s methodological requirements could be met by such a “crutch”.
Today there is a myriad of methods and publications on drug testing and anamnesis in animals. Just this slide into boundlessness and arbitrariness is a clear sign of a misguided method. And if no reference book is available for the individual case, then the analogous recourse to the repertories for human treatment must serve; if necessary, once more the so frequently invoked experience has to do it.
So it is not surprising that the study situation on the effectiveness of animal homeopathy is catastrophic – which even homeopathy organisations admit.
Whether in humans or animals, the homeopathic method is neither effective nor gentle or holistic. Homeopathy is non-treatment – with all the inherent systemic risks in the case of non-self-limiting diseases, whether in humans or animals. Moreover, the animal cannot provide for itself and is dependent for the better or for the worse on the responsibility of its owner. This can only be done by making evidence-based veterinary medicine available to the animal. Everything else is unethical, the word cruelty to animals is quite in place.
Another word on antibiotics in (mass) animal husbandry: antibiotics for non-specific reasons must be rejected. This includes, in particular, preventive and regular administration due to inadequate husbandry conditions. Antibiotics for veterinary medical reasons are to be preferred if necessary however naturally to the ” inactivity ” through homeopathic remedies. The increasing idea that the use of homeopathic remedies offers an “alternative” to antibiotic treatment in livestock is a fatal error, which has an enormous potential for danger!
“Doctors prescribe way too much antibiotics randomly.”
“If I take too much of it, I’ll be resistant in later diseases.”
These sentences can be heard very often in this or similar form. But all three sentences are wrong. Let’s look at them one by one:
1. I’d rather take globules than antibiotics.
Taking globules rather than antibiotics is an understandable wish. But it’s a false comparison. If it were up to me: For example, I’d rather win the lottery than take antibiotics.
Antibiotics are highly effective drugs that are able to kill certain pathogens (bacteria) or prevent their multiplication. Although “anti bios” has the meaning “directed against life”, antibiotics are not effective against all life: parasites and viruses cannot be treated with antibiotics. Nor do we have to fear that humans and animals will be killed by antibiotics. Also not all antibiotics are effective against all bacteria. Bacteria can be “sensitive” or “resistant” (insensitive) to antibiotics.
There are many antibiotic groups whose representatives are not chemically related to each other. They have no common “roots”, but a common goal: the reduction of the number of pathogenic germs in the host organism; the “reduction of the germ load”. For each antibiotic it is possible to indicate which bacteria are sensitive or resistant to this antibiotic. And for each bacterium one can indicate which antibiotics it is sensitive or resistant to. With regard to pathogenic germs, every antibiotic has a “spectrum of action”.
In principle, the use of antibiotics only makes sense if the disease is caused by germs that also lie within the spectrum of action of an antibiotic. If one uses an antibiotic that is effective against pathogenic germs, the germ load in the host organism is reduced. The immune system of the host organism can bring about healing under these improved conditions. The strengthening of the immune system is only induced by the reduction of the germ load itself. A non-specific strengthening of the immune system by foreign substances has not been proven – neither for preparations such as “Echinacin” nor for globules. An undirected use of antibiotics – even of ineffective ones in the case of resistant germs or viruses – cannot lead to a reduction in the germ load and therefore cannot support the immune system.
Occasionally there are studies that show that antibiotics do not work better than homeopathic remedies. To prove this false assertion, antibiotics are then used in the comparison group for diseases that do not respond to antibiotics. So it is not surprising that antibiotics do poorly in these studies. However, this does not mean that globules are preferable to antibiotics, but only that the study design was poor.
However, every use of antibiotics has a second component: under the influence of antibiotics and the resulting increased “selection pressure”, sensitive bacteria can become resistant or more quickly resistant. This accelerated development of resistance also affects germs that are not – not yet! – are pathogenic and can only become dangerous through their antibiotic-induced resistance. The use of antibiotics in viral diseases is therefore not only nonsensical because it is ineffective, but also harmful because it promotes resistance. Medicine as science knows this and teaches it. For this reason, antibiotics are available only on prescription. If there are doctors in individual cases who do not adhere to the guidelines of medicine, then this is a failure of the doctor and not a failure of medicine. In the event of legal proceedings in this regard, medicine would act as a witness against the doctor.
2. Doctors prescribe way too much antibiotics randomly? Why one does think that?
Because doctors are informed about the advantages and disadvantages of antibiotics, they use these drugs only – according to their knowledge and conscience – specifically.
In the case of some infectious diseases, the bacterial cause can be quickly identified without great effort. Other infectious diseases require complex diagnostics. If there is a bacterial infection, antibiotics are justified – even if the path to diagnosis was short: even short routes can be targeted. If the application is incorrectly unintended, the risk of developing resistance to previously sensitive germs increases. The more resistant germs there are, the greater the general health risk to the population. Therefore, germs that are resistant to one antibiotic must be killed by another antibiotic as soon as possible: Dead bacteria cannot pass on their resistances to the next generation of bacteria.
Particularly in mixed infections with a group of different pathogenic germs, even a “broad-spectrum antibiotic” may not be effective for all germs. In this case, several different antibiotics have to be taken one after the other (simultaneous taking is usually problematic because the different chemical mechanisms of action of antibiotics hinder rather than promote each other). Also a change of antibiotics to avoid the formation of resistance is by no means unintended, even if the necessity is not apparent to all patients. And in case of doubt, pathogens and their resistance are determined in the laboratory.
The latest developments, however, give us hope that in the future it will be possible to determine germs quickly and easily in the doctor’s practice and thus drastically reduce “misprescriptions” of antibiotics.
3 If I take too much of it, then I will be resistant in later diseases.
The term resistance refers only to pathogenic germs, not to the host organism (the human body) from which these germs are to be eliminated. The host organisms are “naturally” resistant to antibiotics. This means that only a chemical substance to which host organisms are resistant can be tested for possible antibiotic efficacy. Substances such as “cyanide” or “mercury” may have good ability to kill pathogenic germs. The use of these substances as “antibiotics” is out of the question: humans and animals are not resistant to cyanide or mercury. For humans and animals are cyanide or mercury poisons. It goes without saying that the antibiotics used in medicine must not be toxic to humans or animals, so that humans and animals are resistant to the antibiotics used is not a disadvantage but, on the contrary, a prerequisite for the use of antibiotics. Let us assume – in a game of thought – that people could become resistant to mercury, for example: then we would not have any disadvantage, but only another therapeutic option for infectious diseases caused by mercury-sensitive germs.
Conclusion: I’d rather take globules than antibiotics?
Globules are “homeopathic remedies”. The doctrine of homeopathy knows no germs, so for homeopathy the use of antibiotics is simply absurd. And that is why, conversely, the administration of globules to infectious diseases is no less nonsensical from the point of view of scientific medicine, because homeopathy categorically ignores precisely the actual causes of infectious diseases and the only effective remedies against them.
Antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases – especially severe infectious diseases – is by no means a purely symptomatic therapy, but a causal therapy (“treatment of causes”) that can save lives. A renouncement of a necessary antibiotic therapy can result in serious health damages – by omission.
Harmless diseases, on the other hand, require neither antibiotics nor globules. Homeopathic remedies are ineffective and superfluous for all diseases.
Many people assume that homeopathic remedies are made from herbal substances. But if you look at the long “drug lists” of homeopathic manufacturers, it quickly becomes clear that homeopathy and phytotherapy are two completely different things.
In herbal (phytotherapeutic) drugs the ingredients are present in medically effective concentrations, in modern herbal medicine the cause-effect relationship is investigated using scientific methods and in pharmaceutical processing, for example, unwanted by-products are removed and it is ensured that an exact dosage is possible (standardization).
In homeopathy, however, only some of the basic substances used are of a herbal nature and even among these there are some that can be hazardous to health even in small doses, such as the arrow poison curare, the fly agaric or hemlock.
One can be glad that by the high degree dilution in the used remedies nothing or at least no effective concentration of the raw materials is more present.
This is emphasized even by the authors of drug lists (1).
In the lists of ingredients there are also things of completely non-plant origin like polio viruses (“sterilized”), “humming crop circles”, aluminum, mercury and all other metals, chlorine, the magnetic North Pole, meteor dust from Arizona, microwaves, plutonium, Gonorrhea and syphilis pathogens, even smallpox and plague pathogens (Yersinia pestis), optionally the Berlin Wall or the Great Wall of China – and last but not least sugar, which is – diluted millions or billions of times – sprayed onto globules (which themselves consist only of sugar). But since homeopathic remedies with their Latin or occasionally at least English names are on the market, very few people know what is hidden behind the scientifically sounding names. Who realizes that Cimex lectularius is the common bed bug, Porcellanum misniense Meissen porcelain, Gunpowder comp. pure gunpowder or Excrementum caninum nothing else but dog excrement?
Many of the original materials were unknown at Hahnemann’s time. In the last edition of the ‘Reine Arzneimittellehre’ ( in 1833, he himself described as many as 70 substances which he used for his preparations. Even then, these were not only vegetable raw materials, but also mercury, gold, silver, tin and bismuth, sulphur, phosphoric acid or charcoal. The systematics of the ingredients are at least in part still based on the views of nature as they were common in Hahnemann’s time, but also incorporates modern taxonomies.
A distinction is made between the authors of the drug lists:
Animated kingdoms of nature:
animals
plants
mushrooms
Protists (all unicellular organisms that do not belong to any other empire)
bacteria
Uninhabited kingdoms of nature:
viruses
Minerals (all chemical elements, but with homoeopathic abbreviations)
Energy fields (physical radiation such as the light of the polar star, energy fields of places)
How do the manufacturers of globules and the “inventors” of new formulations come up with the possible substances when they launch new products on the market? After all, there are now over 7,000 ingredients that are used for homeopathic preparations.
The choice of what things are used to make new homeopathic remedies is completely arbitrary and emerges from the developers intuition. It is based on the theory of signatures, which originated in antiquity and was widely used in Europe in the late Middle Ages. She assumes that similarities of characteristics of natural objects indicate inner connections between them and the sphere of human being. These characteristics can be any property imaginable: Form, colour, behaviour, character, smell, taste, location, date of origin, colours, astrological classifications – every aspect you want to read into something.
A popular example is the walnut, whose shape is reminiscent of the human brain and is therefore used in brain diseases, or the bean, which is supposed to help with kidney diseases due to its kidney-like shape. But there are also homeopathic remedies such as “Terra” (normal earth, diluted 1 : 10^30), which is used by expellees, but also by other “uprooted” people such as divorcees.
That these phenomenological similarities have nothing to do with structural, functional or physical connections and correspond to a pre-scientific world model should be clear even to elementary school pupils.
Even completely individual-subjective observations from everyday life can be used for the selection of the basic substance if, for example, the supposedly increased need for chocolate during menstruation is concluded to be related to circulation and the hormone system (of course without having any empirical evidence for this).
Conclusion: The selection of homoeopathic basic substances is random, subjective, purely intuitive and not proven by any logic, research or scientific derivation. The understanding of cause-effect relationships is at best unscientific and often corresponds to magical thinking.
The conclusions follow an inductive logic in which feelings, individual observations or esoteric hypotheses are used to infer regularities without these being able to be empirically proven in any way.
No, globules are not “natural and vegetable” in the sense that the consumer always imagines when he makes such a statement or asks a question.
(1) “Poisons, medicines or pathogens mentioned in the list of homeopathic remedies are to be understood only in the sense of a remedy potentiated according to homeopathic rules, i.e. the homeopathic remedies offered by the aforementioned manufacturers and discussed in tests for medicinal products or articles do not contain the aforementioned substances (poisons, medicines, pathogens) in the chemical or biological sense if the potency level is C12, D24 or higher“. (Source)
Author: Dr. Susanne Kretschmann (Certified Psychologist)
“According to the known laws of aerodynamics, a bumblebee cannot fly. The bumblebee knows nothing about aerodynamics – and still flies”…
…and therefore, as the argument is intended to express, science is also not suited to judge whether homeopathic remedies can work. Finally, as this example clearly shows, science refuses to take note of the obvious and dogmatically insists on her apparently false laws of nature. Really?
Bumblebee on a blossom – how might she have got there?
The bumblebee can fly of course and has (probably) no idea of aerodynamics, so far this is true, but the claim is wrong that the first would contradict the laws of aerodynamics.
What would happen if the statement were true? If knowledge of physics at this point would be wrong or coarse incomplete? If such an obvious phenomenon could not be explained?
Quite simply: There would be a huge challenge as to which physicist would be the first to unveil the secrets of the bumble-bee flight and who the first to be able to correctly describe the causes of the phenomenon. That’s what every scientist strives for: To be the first to break new ground, to connect his name forever with a new knowledge. That’s what Nobel Prizes are for. This achieves reputation, which represents the market value of the researcher.
The fact that this race does not take place is because it is simply not true that the “laws of aerodynamics” contradict the bumblebee flight. It goes too far here to explain the principles of wing theory at comparatively low Reynold’s Numbers (that is, at small dimensions and low speeds), but there is nothing mysterious about it. The bumblebee flaps its wings and can continuously change the shape of the wings in such a way that it sets air in motion in a certain direction, which creates a force on the bumblebee in the opposite direction. You can watch it in high speed slow motion (video YouTube from min 1:30). (These are bees, but wings of bumble bees and bees are not very different).
The basis for the sentence, which is also often used by motivational trainers, is obviously a small, in itself insignificant incident, which would have been forgotten had it not developed into a student eulogy in Göttingen in the 1930s. At that time, the Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (AVA) in Göttingen was one of the world’s leading research institutes, which gave it a certain significance.
The starting point is supposed to have been a meeting of a biologist and an aerodynamicist in a restaurant. The biologist used the example of the bumblebee to get to know how flying works. The aerodynamicist made a short rough calculation on a napkin or a beer mat. He (obviously) calculated that the wings (area 0.7 cm²) would not develop enough lift at the airspeed (10 km/h) to support the weight of the bumblebee (1.2 g). The aerodynamicist made the mistake of using equations that apply in the case that the wings act like rigid aerofoils that are incidently flown in by the airstream. It is easy to imagine that the biologist took this opportunity to talk about nature’s superiority over human technology. When the aerodynamicist noticed and corrected his mistake, it was of course less spectacular and caused much less sensation. (source)
That is the background for this false argument: an error of a single person eating in a pub. It is not known what role wine and beer played in this. There is by no means a whole scientific discipline involved, no physicist has ever claimed that the flight of a bumblebee is impossible.
The argument that the bumble-bee flight contradicts physical laws rather testifies to the lack of expertise of the one who uses this argument, both in terms of physics and aerodynamics, as well as how science works. A probability for the “functioning” of homeopathy is not inherent in this “argument” in the least.
Homeopathic remedies in medium and high potencies do not contain any or no significant amounts of the remedy indicated on the packaging. Some advocates of homeopathy say that it is an antiquated view of the world that a specific effect is linked to the existence of matter. See the mobile phone, which obviously reproduces the words of the interlocutor without the effect of matter.
There is no doubt that there is no direct effect of other parts on the mobile phone, e.g. via a wire connection. However, the underlying idea that matter can only be effective in direct contact with other matter is erroneous. In fact, matter can also work over great distances, just think of gravity, which holds together not only our solar system but whole galaxies over huge distances.
The same applies to electromagnetic distant effects when a transmitter emits electromagnetic waves that can be detected by a receiver. This, too, is an effect based on matter, of which one can easily convince oneself in a small experiment with an older functional mobile phone:
Take the mobile phone apart, remove the antenna and reassemble it. If the effect were actually not bound to matter, the cell phone would still have to function without the antenna, i.e. you would have to be able to make a call with it.
We will see how much the function of the mobile phone is linked to the presence of matter in the form of the required components and that it is therefore erroneous to see an immaterial effect in it. By the way, one will search in vain for an example of an immaterial effect – such phenomena are unknown in natural science. And also for homeopathy the claim of an immaterial effect is wrong. So the “argument” is none.
Has storing music on a CD really anything to do with homeopathy?
The written area of the CD surface can be identified even visually…
Proponents of homeopathy often point out that chemical analysis cannot determine whether a CD is recorded or not, or what is stored on it.
This comparison is intended to refute an essential reservation of critics of homeopathy. Although homeopaths do not deny that the solution does not contain any active ingredient even at a comparatively low potentiation when diluted and shaken, the comparison with the CD allegedly shows that this chemical examination is obviously not sufficient to understand the whole process.
It is undoubtedly true that a chemical analysis cannot distinguish a recorded CD from an unrecorded one. The reason for this is that an essential part is missing from the analysis, namely the structure of the surface which is applied when the CD is burned and in which the contained information is stored. Just as the burning of the information on the CD is obviously independent of its chemical composition, this should also be possible in the solvent if the active ingredient has disappeared from it due to dilution.
This analogy is based on the assumption that water has similar properties to the CD and can also store information in its structure in some way. However, the analogy is no proof that this is really the case. In fact, the opposite is the case: while a CD as a solid can easily store an imprinted structure over a very long period of time even with a certain resistance to destruction, this property of a liquid is completely absent. Try to write something with any pen on the surface of liquid water. What is easily achieved with a CD with a suitable pen proves to be impossible with a liquid. The structures (water clusters) that water actually forms are of such an extremely short lifespan that it is impossible to store information even for the tiniest fractions of a second.
Quintessence: The statement that a chemical analysis cannot tell whether data is stored on a CD is correct, but the implicit assertion that the conditions in the water are similar is wrong. The CD is a completely unsuitable model to illustrate the processes of potentiation and therefore does not function as a “proof” for homeopathy.
A book from the beginning of the 19th century – a Bible of today’s “medicine”?
Memorial plaque to Hahnemann’s tomb in Paris with key sentences from the Organon
The Organon can justifiably be called the Bible of homeopaths. It was first published in 1810 by the inventor of homeopathy, the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann, and received a total of five revisions and six editions from his hand.
The term organon comes from ancient Greek and means as much as tool, and Hahnemann has seen it as such. The organon should be the tool for healing the patients. His book was therefore aimed not only at doctors, but also at patients. Hahnemann also partly gave away his organon to his own patients.
While the book also contained reasonable suggestions for personal hygiene or lifestyle in case of illness, it also contains abstruse explanations as to why homeopathy cannot work, for example, because one wore underwear made of sheep’s wool or had unchaste thoughts.
Of course, a good part of the organon takes up the explanation of the basic homeopathic principle that similar things are cured with similar things. The same applies to the instructions for potentiation, i.e. the dilution of the active substances. In his teaching, Hahnemann assumed that the dilution would not weaken the effect, but even increase it.
You can’t blame Hahnemann here, though. At the time when he wrote his Organon, the basics of pharmaceutical mechanisms of action were not yet known, neither were viruses or bacteria (germs) as pathogens, since science-oriented medicine was still in its infancy. Therefore, the Organon and its origin must always be seen in its historical context.
What Samuel Hahnemann insists on in his Organon, however, is the compilation of a comprehensive diagnosis, which is today referred to as the “first conversation”. Only through this diagnostic interview can the “symptom picture” of the patient be determined, which is then a prerequisite for finding the “only right” remedy and thus for a comprehensive and lasting cure. – On the side: If you read this paragraph in the Organon, the question arises: And how should animal homeopathy work? A diagnostic interview with a dog or horse might be a bit difficult.
Another interesting point is that Hahnemann assumes that there is always only one disease in the human body that can do its mischief, which can only be treated with one active ingredient. Today’s “homeopathic tri-complexes”, which we know from advertising, completely contradict Hahnemann’s basic idea in Organon. And these are not marginalities, but core principles of homeopathy. At Hahnemann it is clear: one disease, one active substance, one recovery.
That Samuel Hahnemann already felt harsh headwinds in the first years after the publication of his new doctrine of faith in the Organon, can be noticed at the latest from the fifth edition of the Organon. In this edition he insults his opponents violently and “renegade homoeopaths” massively. The renegade homoeopaths even more violently than the opponents, so there is to read from “mongrel homeopaths” and more. By this he means above all those who deviated from his teachings and created their own “variations” (of which there is a huge amount today that contradict both the Organon and among each other, sometimes massively).
It is also interesting to note that nothing has changed in the organon, and thus in the homeopathic core doctrine, in the last 200 years. Especially the medical homoeopathy usually refers to representing the “classical” (strongly based on Hahnemann) or the “genuine” (Hahnemann literally taking) homoeopathy. Although medical knowledge has multiplied extremely in this long time, no paragraph of this book has been revised or replaced. Nevertheless, this book from the early 19th century is the basis of the homoeopathic education and training – also the “official” based on the training regulations of the German Medical Association for the acquisition of the “additional medical designation homoeopathy”.
Der nachstehende Beitrag erhellt exemplarisch, was sich so manches Mal hinter Veröffentlichungen der homöopathischen Szene verbirgt.
Auf seiner Facebook-Seite hatte der DZVhÄ (Deutscher Zentralverein homöopathischer Ärzte) am 14. April 2016 um 13.37 Uhr einen Artikel des American Institute of Homeopathy mit einem eigenen Link eingestellt (Link inzwischen erloschen).
Äh… wie bitte?!?
Hierin wird berichtet, ein gewisser Dr. Leonard Torok aus Medina/Ohio/USA hätte bei Knieoperationen homöopathische Zubereitungen von Arnica eingesetzt und dabei bemerkenswerte Erfolge erzielt. Dies sei anhand von Messungen der Menge Blut festgestellt worden, die während mehrerer Operationen zur Implantation eines künstlichen Kniegelenks gefiltert und dem Patienten wieder zugeführt wurde. Im Jahr bevor Dr. Torok Arnica einsetzte, hätte der Blutverlust im Durchschnitt 650 ccm betragen. Nach 17 von Dr. Torok mit Hilfe von Arnica ausgeführten Operationen hätte der Statistiker des Krankenhauses die Versuchsreihe abgebrochen, weil “statistisch signifikante Ergebnisse” vorgelegen hätten. Der durchschnittliche Blutverlust dieser 17 Patienten habe nur bei 170 ccm gelegen.
Insgesamt hätten die Untersuchungen ergeben, dass die Patienten weniger unter Schmerzen zu leiden gehabt hätten, weniger Schwellungen aufgetreten seien, die Ausheilung schneller erfolgte, der Aufenthalt im Krankenhaus kürzer war, weniger Narkosemittel eingesetzt werden musste und die Patienten daher auch weniger unter den Folgen der Narkose litten (Übelkeit etc.).
Dr. Torok habe daraufhin 10 Jahre lang bei seinen Operationen homöopathisches Arnica eingesetzt und sei vor kurzem in Ruhestand gegangen.
Soweit der DZVhÄ. Was sagt das aus?
Zunächst einmal nichts, denn es fehlt an allen detaillierten Angaben, die eine Bewertung ermöglichen würden und es werden auch keine Quellen genannt, in denen man sich weiter informieren könnte.
Also müssen wir die Sache selbst recherchieren. (Alle Internetzugriffe am 23.04.2016)
Erste Station: Google Scholar, die Suchmaschine für wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen.
Eine Suche in Google Scholar mit “Leonard Torok” als Autor bringt nur fünf Treffer, keiner davon hat auch nur im Entferntesten mit Homöopathie zu tun.
Zweite Station: PubMed, die Suchmaschine für medizinische Veröffentlichungen:
Mit Leonard Torok als Autor findet man nichts, mit Leonard Torok in der Volltextsuche findet man eine Studie zur Freigabe eines Medikaments für Alzheimer. Also auch Fehlanzeige.
Dritte Station: CORE HOM Datenbank der Carstens-Stiftung zu klinischen Studien zur Homöopathie:
(a) Suche nach Leonard Torok als Autor ist erfolglos.
(b) Eine Suche nach Arnica als eingesetztem Mittel ergibt in Summe 106 Treffer, davon vier zur Implantation eines künstlichen Kniegelenks. Dabei handelt es sich bei allen vier Arbeiten (Brinkhaus 2006, Lüdtke 1998, Wilkens 2000, Wilkens 2003) um Berichte über die gleichen Untersuchungen, die immer vom gleichen Autorenteam auf unterschiedliche Weise veröffentlicht wurden. Dabei handelt es sich um Untersuchungen, die an der Charité in Berlin durchgeführt wurden, diese haben also nichts mit unserem Dr. Torok zu tun. Nebenbei: Es ergab sich keine deutliche positive Wirkung des Einsatzes von Arnica.
Zusammengefasst bis hierher:
In dem Artikel wird behauptet, da hätte jemand einen überwältigenden Erfolg mit Arnica als homöopathischem Mittel erzielt. Dies würde sich doch hervorragend dazu eignen, damit den lange gesuchten ultimativen Wirksamkeitsnachweis für die Homöopathie zu erbringen – aber diese Sensation hat keinen Niederschlag in irgendwelchen Fachveröffentlichungen gefunden, noch nicht einmal als ein in Kreisen der Homöopathen verbreiteter Fallbericht.
Wer ist Leonard Torok?
Eine Google-Suche führt tatsächlich zu einem Dr. Torok in Medina/Ohio, der in der entsprechenden Klinik gearbeitet hat und dessen biografische Daten zur Beschreibung passen. Dieser wird einmal als Orthopäde (Link erloschen …), einmal als Spezialist für “ganzheitliche Medizin und Dermatologie” (Link erloschen …) geführt. Einmal sind Knieoperationen sein Spezialgebiet, dann wieder Akne, Neurodermitis und andere Hautkrankheiten. Aus den biographischen Daten ist zu ersehen, dass es sich dabei durchaus um die gleiche Person handelt.
Auf einer anderen Webseite (Link erloschen …) wird wieder die gleiche Person beschrieben, diesmal allerdings als jemand mit vertieften Kenntnissen der “ganzheitlichen Medizin”, was wir hierzulande als Alternativ- und Komplementärmedizin bezeichnen würden: Zu seinen Spezialgebieten zählen TCM, Klangschalentherapie, Neurofeedback (“neurotherapy”), Hypnose, Verhaltensmedizin (“behavioral medicine”), Bioresonanz (“electrodermal screening”), Craniosakraltherapie, Osteopathie (“somatoemotional release”) und fortgeschrittene Homöopathie (“advanced homeopathy”)
Hier (Link erloschen … )profiliert er sich als Kosmetiker.
Ach ja, über seine angeblichen durchgreifenden Erfolge bei Knieoperationen erfährt man auf allen diesen Seiten: nichts.
Das Krankenhaus, an dem die umwerfenden Erfolge erzielt worden sein sollen, ist das Medina Hospital, das, nach der Webseite (Link erloschen …) zu urteilen, zur Cleveland Clinic gehört. Folgt man dort den Links zur Orthopädie und Knieproblemen, erfährt man nichts über den segensreichen Einsatz der Homöopathika. Möglicherweise sind Angaben in den Informationsbroschüren enthalten, die man sich downloaden kann, wenn man sich mit einer amerikanischen Postleitzahl (zip-code) registriert. Ich habe als Einwohner Südbadens davon Abstand genommen.
Eine gründliche Suche nach Veröffentlichungen des Krankenhauses sowie nach dem Stichwort “homeopathy” auf der Webseite führte zu keinem einschlägigen Suchergebnis.
Zur Cleveland Clinic gehört noch ein Lerner Research Institute, das für die Jahre 1999 bis 2014 Jahresberichte zur Forschung herausgegeben hat, also durchaus den gesamten Zeitraum abdeckt, in denen Dr. Torok seine einmaligen Erfolge erzielte (Link erloschen …). Eine Volltextsuche nach “Torok” ergab in keinem der Berichte einen Treffer. Auch die Suche nach dem Namen “Torok” auf der Webseite blieb erfolglos.
Also, lieber DZVhÄ: Woher wisst Ihr das eigentlich, was Ihr hier behauptet? Es gelingt nicht, irgendeiner Information hierzu habhaft zu werden, die die Grundlage für Euren Artikel bilden könnte. So wie sich das darstellt, kann es sich bei dem veröffentlichten Artikel auch um ein völliges Phantasieprodukt handeln, dem Ihr da aufgesessen seid.
Aber nehmen wir einfach mal an, dass das, was der DZVhÄ da schreibt, tatsächlich stimmt. Wie ist das zu interpretieren?
Alles was wir über den durchgeführten Vergleich wissen, ist folgendes: During the year prior to this experiment, the average blood loss during and after surgery was 650cc. During the experiment, the 17 patients in the study had an average blood loss of 170cc, representing a 74% decrease.
(Während des Jahres vor dem Versuch betrug der durchschnittliche Blutverlust während und nach Operationen 650 ccm. Während des Versuchs verzeichneten die 17 teilnehmenden Patienten einen durchschnittlichen Blutverlust von 170 ccm.)
Belastbare Evidenz erfordert, so ist der gegenwärtige Kenntnisstand, kontrollierte und verblindete Vergleichsstudien, bei denen eine größere Zahl von Patienten nach einem Zufallsprinzip auf zwei Gruppen aufgeteilt wird. Eine der Gruppen erhält das zu prüfende Mittel, die andere das Placebo bzw. das Vergleichsmittel bekannter Wirksamkeit. Durch die Randomisierung – die Aufteilung nach einem Zufallsprinzip – soll sichergestellt werden, dass die Ausgangssituation in beiden Gruppen vergleichbar ist. Durch die (doppelte) Verblindung wird sichergestellt, dass in beiden Gruppen das Verhältnis zwischen Behandler / Betreuer und Patienten nicht durch “Vorwissen” dazu beeinflusst wird, wer welche Mittel erhält. Nur so ist sichergestellt, dass man auch die Effekte des Mittels erfasst und sich Wunschdenken oder einseitige Placeboeffekte im Ergebnis nicht wiederfinden.
Was davon findet sich hier?
Es wurden zwei Gruppen betrachtet – aber waren diese vergleichbar? Bei der Vergleichsgruppe handelt es sich um alle Patienten eines Jahres – und es wird noch nicht einmal gesagt, dass dies nur Patienten waren, denen ein künstliches Kniegelenk eingesetzt wurde. Man unterstellt das, wenn man die Nachricht liest, unwillkürlich, aber geschrieben ist das nicht. Da steht “… after surgery …”, nicht “… after knee-surgery …”. Selbst wenn es sich bei allen um die gleichen Operationen handelte, ist nicht ersichtlich, ob andere möglicherweise den Erfolg der Operation bestimmende Faktoren vergleichbar waren (z.B. Alter, Geschlecht, Gewicht …).
Wir erfahren, dass die Patienten von Dr. Torok weniger Blutverlust zu verzeichnen hatten. Wenn dem tatsächlich so war und die Gruppen vergleichbar waren – lag das notwendigerweise an dem homöopathischen Mittel?
Ganz und gar nicht. Alles, worin sich das Vorgehen Dr. Toroks von dem unterschied, was die anderen Mediziner taten, die im Jahr zuvor die Operationen durchgeführt hatten, kann zu diesem Unterschied geführt haben. Hätte man feststellen wollen, ob tatsächlich die Homöopathika einen Einfluss hatten, dann hätte man den Patienten verblindet entweder Arnica oder ein Placebo geben müssen und alle hätten von Dr. Torok operiert werden müssen. Natürlich auch ohne dass dieser wusste, wer welches Mittel eingenommen hat. Dann hätte man das sehen können.
Überhaupt, wie kam man eigentlich darauf, ausgerechnet den Blutverlust als das Beurteilungskriterium heranzuziehen? Das ist höchst ungewöhnlich. Ein Blick in die oben erwähnte Datenbank zu den Arnica-Studien zeigt, dass generell nach Operationen eher die Ausbildung von Hämatomen (“blaue Flecke”, die Schwellung an der Eingriffsstelle oder auch das Ausmaß der Schmerzen betrachtet wurden. Das Ausmaß des Blutverlusts wird nur einmal in 36 Untersuchungen genannt, die sich mit Operationen und Wundheilung befassen. Wie kam Dr. Torok auf die Idee, genau dies zu messen?
Oder kam er gar nicht vorher auf die Idee, sondern hat einfach eine ganze Menge Daten ermittelt, wie ja auch aus der Aufzählung der Vorteile hervorgeht und für diesen Bericht wurde einfach das beste der Ergebnisse herausgefischt? Dann ist das eine völlig wertlose Angabe, denn wenn man nur ausreichend Daten erfasst, wird man immer (!) etwas finden können, das sich positiv entwickelt und auch zu einem signifikanten Ergebnis geführt hat.
Der richtige Weg ist vorab festzulegen, anhand welcher Größen man seinen Erfolg bewerten wird – und dabei zu begründen, nach welcher logischen Überlegung oder aufgrund welcher Vorkenntnisse man davon ausgehen kann, warum das Mittel genau so wirkt. Alles andere sind Zufallstreffer, die man unter den verschiedenen Fehlschlüssen eingruppieren könnte, sei es der Texas Sharpshooter, das Rosinenpicken oder auch Data mining. Alles Dinge, mit denen man scheinbar überzeugende Resultate erzeugen kann, auch wenn das betrachtete Mittel unwirksam ist.
Der Texas Sharpshooter schießt erst auf ein Scheunentor, schaut, wo er getroffen hat, malt hinterher die Zielscheibe drum herum und sagt: “Schaut, wie toll ich ins Schwarze getroffen habe!” Rosinenpicken bedeutet, dass man aus dem großen Ganzen die paar Dinge heraussucht, die einem gefallen. Data mining ist einfach der Vorgang, sehr viele Daten zu ermitteln, wobei durch die natürliche Streuung immer auch positive Resultate dabei sind.
Da wir gerade beim Zufall sind: Nachdem was der DZVhÄ schreibt, wurde der Versuch vorzeitig abgebrochen, weil die Daten signifikant waren. Es ist ein bei einem Wirksamkeitsnachweis völlig unzulässiges Vorgehen, dann schnell aufzuhören, wenn die Daten gerade gepasst haben.
Auch hier muss man vorab eine Vorgehensweise festlegen und sich daran halten. Man überlegt sich üblicherweise, wie groß der Effekt ist, den man erwartet. Hieraus kann man mit statistischen Verfahren ermitteln, wie viele Versuche man braucht, um das Ergebnis in der unvermeidlichen Streuung der Messwerte deutlich erkennen zu können. Bricht man die Versuchsreihe dann ab, bevor man diese Versuchszahl abgearbeitet hat, ist das Ergebnis nur ein Zufallstreffer – und mehr auch nicht.
Zusammenfassung: Der DZVhÄ behauptet, ein Dr. Torok habe in den USA unter Einsatz von homöopathischem Arnica ganz erhebliche Verbesserungen bei Knieoperationen erzielt. Unabhängig davon, dass dieser Dr. Torok ein recht umtriebiger Mensch zu sein scheint, der über eine erstaunliche Menge von Spezialkenntnissen verfügt, hat sich dieser angebliche Erfolg anscheinend in keiner auffindbaren Veröffentlichung niedergeschlagen. Das, was wir vom DZVhÄ darüber erfahren, lässt die Vermutung aufkommen, dass es sich um ein Zufallsergebnis handelt und überhaupt nichts mit dem Einsatz homöopathischer Arnica zu tun hatte.
Weiter so, DZVhÄ! Solche Evidenz trägt die Katze auf dem Schwanz weg – vor dem Frühstück.
Nachsatz, 07.10.2019
Das Erlöschen sämtlicher Link-Referenzen, die überhaupt auffndbar waren, machen den Artikel nicht etwa weniger aktuell, sondern eher noch interessanter. Wer sich auf solche “Belege” beruft, braucht eigentlich niemand mehr, der sich die Mühe macht, sie zu widerlegen.
Eine aktuelle Websuche nach “Dr. Leonard Torok” ergab einen Treffer in der Mitgliederliste des American Institute of Homeopathy, der wiederum auf eine “Ohio Holostic Medicine” hinweist. Dabei handelt es sich laut Google um eine Akupunkturklinik, wo Dr. Torok sich offenbar ein weiteres Tätigkeitsfeld erschlossen hat. Diese Einrichtung befindet sich in der Nähe des American Institute of Homeopathy und verfügt nicht über eine eigene Webpräsenz, scheint aber zu einem größeren “Cluster” von Einrichtungen der alternativen Szene “vor Ort” zu gehören.
Ein Schelm, wer Schlimmes dabei denkt. Die Katze hat’s eben einfach auf dem Schwanz davongetragen.
Autor: Dr. Norbert Aust
Diesen Text hatten wir als Kommentar auf der Facebook-Seite des DZVhÄ (Deutscher Zentralverein homöopathischer Ärzte) am 24.04.2016 unter deren Link zu der “Studie” gepostet. Eine Reaktion darauf haben wir nicht erhalten.
Homeopathy is said to be a very individual therapy. Even the smallest differences between two patients can cause them to be administered different remedies, even though they otherwise have the same complaints.
Imagine if you had eczema on your skin – a very itchy spot – and you were visiting a homeopath. The homeopath would take an anamnesis with you. This would reveal that you are also prone to depression, occasionally have headaches, mild gastritis (inflammation of the stomach lining) and sometimes have asthma symptoms in summer – apparently you are allergic to certain grass pollen. If you are additional afraid of being alone, then Arsenicum album would be the remedy for you. If you had exactly the same symptoms, all that just been mentioned, but being alone does not bother you, but instead of you are afraid of burglars and mirrors, then Pulsatilla would be the remedy of choice.
As sensitively as remedies are prescribed, so precisely is homeopathy adapted to the entire human being. No other doctor can keep up, this remedy is just right for you – only for you.
So much for the good news.
The bad news is that this prescription is completely unrelated to reality. Because, one should ask, how does one know what effect the remedies have?
When selecting remedies, homeopaths are guided by so-calles repertories, i.e. inventories in which it is listed which remedy should be effective for which symptoms. These data were determined in so-called homeopathic drug tests, in which healthy test subjects took the remedies and recorded the symptoms they subsequently experienced. It is assumed that a remedy can cure the symptoms it causes in a healthy person. This is the similarity rule of homeopathy, the basic pillar after which homeopathy was named.
We can therefore say that when taking Arsenicum album
– someone got depression
– someone got a headache
– someone got a gastritis.
– someone was allergic to something
– someone had asthma attacks.
– someone was afraid of being alone.
But were these “someones” the same person? What if the person who was afraid of being alone suffered from shingles? What if the person who had asthma was prone to coercive behavior? Or was the one with eczema suffering from insomnia? The remedy would only be tested in these combinations, not necessarily in the one you have as a patient.
Quintessence: The symptoms that led you to choose the drug are unlikely to have occurred in any of the examiners all together. The individuality of homeopathy is limited solely to the collection of the symptoms in the patient – the individuality of the examiners plays no role at all. If the patient is a small petite temperamental young woman and the examiner is a tall heavy phlegmatic older man – that doesn’t matter at all, symptom is symptom.
Do you notice what a mirage is being built up? The individual prescription on the basis of the symptoms determined in the anamnesis is meaningless. If the anamnesis had any significance for the means choice, then the accompanying circumstances of the examiners would also have to have been recorded during the drug testing and then recorded in the drug picture. But they are not, as you can easily convince yourself. Another contradiction that neither attracts the attention of homeopaths nor seems to disturb them.
But to really talk about the whole burden of life with someone who seems to be interested in it is good, no question. But homoeopaths are not trained for it!
“We all don’t process information as carefully and reflectively as we think we do.”
Fast thinking versus slow thinking
People use two different ways of thinking. Normally we judge intuitively, without reflection and according to learned, generalized and often irrational rules that are not consciously perceived and questioned. Such intuitive rules are for example: “Loss of something is worse than an equal loss of profit” – “When one event occurs after another, it is caused by the first” – “My view on a subject corresponds to the opinion of the majority” – “chemical is bad, of natural origin is good” or also “scientific explanations are only one of several equivalent views”. This system has its advantages, it is fast and mostly effective for everyday decisions in a stable environment. It’s also called thinking fast.
System two, which is called slow thinking, is the logical and systematic thinking, the weighing of different alternatives according to rational points of view. It is slow, but leads to more reliable results, especially under uncertain conditions or when making important decisions. Economists in particular, with their model of “homo oeconomicus”, are of the (often erroneous) opinion that people always behave rationally.
The slow rational system must first be consciously activated, while the intuitive one is permanently “in operation”. This means that it not always come to fruition, even in the case of important and momentous decisions. So we do not weigh up the important arguments, but are often influenced in our intuitive way of thinking by completely unimportant criteria. Studies have shown that judges’ judgments after eating were milder than before – blood glucose had influenced the decision, not just the rational balance.
Homeopathy “feeds” fast thinking
The more central a conviction is for one’s own value system, the more powerful the intuitive level is. For example, in a consolidated belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy, it is of little use to refute individual points because they are supported by others – doubts would question one’s own self-image! Experiences, which contradict the firm belief (a remedy does not work), do not question the remedy or homeopathy as such, but are explained within the system (wrong application, wrong boundary conditions, wrong homeopath). As a rule of thumb can be considered: The less comprehensive an intuitive control system is or the less central a rule such as “chemical vs. biological” is in the value system, the less immune they are to irritations such as logical refutation. In this case, the rational debate can be set in motion by questioning intuition, by letting the rule “stumble”, so to speak: “Why should something work that does not contain any active ingredient?” Someone for whom homeopathy is not central will think about the argument and perhaps come to their own conclusions. A convinced homeopathic practitioner will change the level of argumentation and bring the supposed water memory into play.
Our judgements and behaviour are usually determined more by the intuitive level than by the rational level. The world is too complex to process every input in detail and to judge it rationally. So we use cognitive heuristics that give us quick orientation and guidance. One of these heuristics is, for example, the intuitive judgment of a text according to the connotations of the words used, i.e. the emotional meanings that the terms have subjectively. When fast reactions are required – and they are usually in everyday life (for example: Is this product interesting for me? Am I going to read this text? Does this information correspond to my opinion?) -, we usually let ourselves be guided by this first subjective impression and not by rational reflection.
How to convince homeopathy advocates?
By rational arguments rather not, because the rational thinking is largely “switched off” in the evaluation of the beloved healing method. The choice of terms when communicating with believers in alternative medicine is nevertheless important for the acceptance of the arguments. The term “not complicated” in a product description leaves a more negative feeling than the term “simple”, although both have the same meaning. We will tend not to buy the product or to accept communicated information. This effect generally occurs in negative statements, especially in written communication: the negative connotation and not the objective content is permanently remembered.
The phenomenon of reaction to connotations instead of content can be easily verified: How does an opponent of alternative medicine spontaneously perceive a text and evaluate it, which contains some of the following words, possibly already in the heading: Mindfulness – gentle – natural – subtle – quantum healing – energetic – healer? How long will she be reading? Will she buy a book advertised with such terms?
For this reason, terms should also be avoided that have already acquired their own meaning in relevant discussions and have been appropriated by one side, i.e. are stored in an intuitive rule. They automatically generate ideas that obstruct or make impossible the goal of communication – namely an objective examination of the topic and the information conveyed – from the outset. Examples of such contaminated terms are “chemical” vs. “biological”, “esoteric”, “science”, “pharmaceutical industry” or “sugar pellets”.
On the other hand, as a homoeopathic practitioner one intuitively grasps the associations of homoeopathy such as “natural”, “gentle” or “no side effects” and tends to do so emotionally quickly – often without further questioning these associations. Perhaps, however, it will be possible with previous advocates to flip the switch from fast to slow thinking and to sensitize them for new arguments against their previous faith by using the right choice of words – INH is also committed to this.
Author: Dr. Susanne Kretschmann is a graduate psychologist specializing in cognitive and environmental psychology
Learn more:
>> Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow; Penguin Pocketbook, 512 pages (2016)
Homeopathy is not the right answer to justified questions and wishes of patients
Magic is no alternative to reality
Many patients are longing for an alternative to our often so time-limited, too often unemotional medical everyday life – and rightly so! Who would like to feel treated like a number or be left alone with their concerns regarding a medical diagnosis? Who is not looking for a good way to avoid having to run to the doctor every time something goes wrong, possibly to pick up the seasonal viruses in the waiting room? Who would not like to avoid side effects for themselves and their children? Who wouldn’t want to resort to gentle, natural remedies if they could maintain their health and perhaps even prevent illness? All these points (and there are certainly a whole range of others) are absolutely understandable, comprehensible and humane. All these questions are looking for an answer.
But homeopathy is not the right answer. Yes, homeopathy has been suggesting for many years that it can answer these questions. In every advertisement, the words “gentle, natural, free of side effects” find their place. In every self-description, the homeopath tells that he can address “the root” of a disease, that he activates the body’s self-healing power, that his remedies are tailored exactly to the patient and his individual history. A dream. Yes, but exactly that. Because it is simply not true.
The best that homeopathy has to offer is time. While a patient is a guest of the homeopath or repertorizes his symptoms over and over again, his body heals itself. But this is fatal again because the patient and also the homeopath are increasingly establishing the belief that it is due to homeopathy that the symptoms have improved. “Alternative treatment” seems to have succeeded. Seems so.
Homeopathy promises more than it can deliver
Because today we know very well that no real treatment at all has taken place, instead time has simply passed. Perhaps the warm atmosphere and the mysticism that surrounds homeopathy have contributed to the patient’s improvement. Or the possibility of having control over the own illness or that of one’s children. But we know very well that it was not the causal effect of the globules. Nothing can do nothing. We also know that the belief that one would be helped makes a difference. But this occurs with every therapy, yes, with every kind of care, we do not need an “alternative” treatment method for this.
But why don’t we just let it go with this insight? Why do we want to establish the term “pseudomedicine” in our information network homeopathy?
Because homeopathy doesn’t let it be enough. It does not say: We exist on the faith and trust that patients give us, we benefit on past time and other minor factors that can be attributed to psychology. Instead, it claims grossly false things:
that substances in absence can have any effect,
that nanoparticles or quantum physics would explain that,
that shaking can transfer energy from substances to water and from there back to globules,
that the effect is still present in the globules when the water evaporates,
that care and talks are not what helps, but any specific effect of the globule energy,
that there are specific effects of the globules beyond placebo level,
that there are studies that show this clearly and unambiguously,
that they could prove all this – in contrast to science, which is always just doubting around – (because one could experience it).
There is and needs no alternative to effective medicine
Here a completely wrong impression is given. And an attempt is being made to give homeopathy a serious, medical slant. To leave a scientifically proven impression. But we have long known that homeopathy cannot be part of medicine, as well as part of science. And that it is certainly not an alternative (what is “an alternative” to proven effective medicine anyway?). There is no alternative to effective medicine and there is no need for it. If a method can prove its efficacy, then it is included in medicine and used within it. Homeopathy has not been able to prove its effectiveness in about 200 years. Instead, it is based on quasi-scientific connotations and great popularity among the population. However, the popularity is not a result of the actual effectiveness of homeopathy, but rather of the promises that desperate patients seeking help are so eager to believe. The terms alternative medicine, complementary medicine or integrative medicine suggest that more help is possible here than with effective proven medicine. But how should this be possible?
Pseudomedicine does not help patients
But because this discrepancy between praising and keeping the promise of salvation is still hardly known, we would like to make it clear with the more blatant term “pseudo-medicine” that homeopathy is not an “alternative”. We want to make it clear to patients that homeopathy does not give them what it first feels like and is marketed as good. In the worst case, really meaningful alternatives are not available. Even if these sometimes only consist of waiting and drinking some tea and reading a nice book. Sometimes it can also be a conversation with your best friend or professional support from a psychologist. Sometimes it is also another doctor with whom the chemistry is better – literally and medically. Even the health insurance companies know this – and today they make it possible to change doctors without any problems.
This true without lying, certain and most true.
That which is below is like that which is above and that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing.
(Tabula Smaragdina – Emerald Tablet – of Hermes Trismegistos, translated by Sir Isaac Newton)
Medea – painting by John William Waterhouse
The term esotericism originates from the ancient Greek “ἐσωτερικός”, which means as much as “directed inwards”. Esotericism was once regarded as a secret doctrine, but today it can be found everywhere in the alternative faith scene and has long been accessible to the general public.
Nowadays, esotericism is understood to mean practically any discipline that is neither empirically nor rationally verifiable and therefore does not agree with scientific findings – and to a large extent contradicts them – and deals with mythical and spiritual topics. Esotericism and occultism (lat. “occultus” = hidden, mysterious, dark) are closely related. Occultism is usually defined as the more practical part of the same worldview. Meanwhile, there is an increasing mixture of esotericism with ancient wisdom teachings of various cultures and predominantly Far Eastern religions.
Many ideas of the archaic world view can be found in “alternative medicine”. Esoterics of all fractions represent ancient ideas, which contradict all today known scientific knowledge and allegedly go back to Hermes Trismegistos. Hermes Trismegistos was (possibly) a priest who lived in the third century BC. Some speak of a deity, a syncretic fusion (i.e. a mixture of religious ideas into a new world view) of the gods Hermes and Thot. Esotericists repeatedly quote the hermetic philosophy, i.e. the fifteen sentences Trismegistos supposedly wrote down on emerald tablets. Esotericists believe that in these sentences “all knowledge of mankind is summarized”, whereby the second and central sentence is: “What is below is equal to what is above”.
The core of the esoteric world view is the assignment of the ten eternally existing primordial principles. These embody for symbolic astrology the basic building blocks of all life in the universe – to the “ten planets” (the “heavenly representatives” sun, moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) and the four, respectively five elements. Accordingly, in the understanding of symbolic astrology, the world is constructed from ten eternally existing, divine primeval principles (archetypes), which can be found in hierarchies in all layers of being – from the macrocosm to the microcosm, from top to bottom and from inside to outside.
The well-known Austrian homeopath Clemens Fischmeister argued the same way in his article “Wie denkt ein klassischer Homöopath? (How does a classic homeopath think? – published in “Facharzt” 2002). There he writes: “The healing takes place in hierarchies, from top to bottom … from the most important to the less important organ” (Hering´s rule), whereby he described (completely unchallenged) the skin as the “most unimportant organ of man”!
Another basis of homeopathy is the “principle of similarity” (Similia similibus curentur). This is associated with the imaginative idea that it is possible to eliminate symptoms of disease by diluting and potentiating primal substances – e.g. arsenic – which in healthy test subjects trigger symptoms similar to those shown by the patient. This “principle of similarity”, which does not play the slightest role in modern medicine, is based on the medieval “theory of signatures”, which is closely linked to the analogous thinking of all esotericists. It is the doctrine of the “signs in nature” that supposedly point to inner connections and similarities within the framework of the entire divine creation. These signatures are thus a work of God which man only has to recognize. Accordingly, there are analogies between form, colour, smell, location and astrological classifications. In the logic of the faithful, above all the similarities are of great importance. For example, the kidney-shaped bean with the kidney, the brain-shaped walnut with the brain, heart-shaped leaves of the melissa with the heart, the mistletoe as a semi-parasite with cancer, the lady’s mantle with female organs and lungwort with the lungs are said to be related. Bitter-tasting plants are said to have a relationship to the “element” fire, which is related to the sun, and thus stimulate metabolic processes.
This ancient, imaginative and completely unscientific doctrine, which in its concrete formulation goes back to Paracelsus and the Neapolitan doctor and alchemist Giambattista della Porta, also conveys the belief that the colour of medicinal products gives an indication of the diseases for which they are intended to be used. The colour red, for example, for heart diseases, blue for reducing restlessness. The doctrine of the “divine signatures” is also part of many esoteric treatment methods such as Ayurveda medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and, last but not least, homeopathy.
Like many astrologers and homoeopaths today, the vitalist Hahnemann believed in the “spiritual essence of the primordial substance” – which unfolds more and more strongly through the process of potentizing (diluting and shaking towards the center of the earth) and acts most strongly as high potency -, in the “cosmic primordial force” and in the “primordial idea that permeates all levels from top to bottom”. In the vertical world view of astrology, for example, the original principle of Mars (“the god of war and ruler over the wild aries”) is analogous to aggression and ferocity, to certain organs and body parts such as blood, head, teeth, nails, gall, striated muscles, the “element” fire, to the red colour of the blood and to certain Martian plants.
In homeopathy, therefore, the often prickly “Martian plants” of astrologers are associated with certain human organs (blood vessels, gallbladder, muscles and head), the colour red and the element fire. This is why homeopaths prescribe the original substances Aconitum, Allium cepa and Belladonna – all “Martian plants” – for severe, feverish, fiery inflammations, for gallstones as well as for bright red head, bleeding and blood congestion. Exactly such nonsensical recommendations for the treatment of severe febrile diseases with the Mars plant Belladonna can be found again and again in various magazines and online.
Other planets and their earthly plants and metals also play an important role in the thinking of homeopaths. In astrology, the planet Saturn is always associated with the colour lead grey, the metal lead, with lime deposits, reduction and stone ailments. In addition, astromedics see a connection between the primordial principle of Saturn and the skeleton, kidney, gall bladder and spleen. It is therefore not surprising that the “original substance” lycopodium (a “Saturn plant”) and the metallic lead of homeopaths are used in patients with reduced general condition, dirty grey skin colour and “hardening” caused by gout, arteriosclerosis, diseases of bile, kidney (nephrosclerosis) and skeleton. The planet Uranus is connected to varicose veins, nerves and the sexual urge in the vertical world view of astrology. Consequently, the most important “uranium plant” in astrology – hamamelis – is used by homeopaths to treat symptoms caused by varicose veins, venous bleeding, nerve inflammation and testicular diseases.
Other examples are also included: Following closely astrological (pseudomedical) ideas, homeopaths prescribe the Venus metal copper for cramps of all kinds and disorders of the nervous system; the sun metal gold for cardiovascular disorders, increased blood pressure and depression; the Jupiter metal tin for nervous exhaustion, neuralgia and liver pain; or the moon metal silver for restlessness and neurasthenia.
Remarkably also the common “holy” numbers of all esotericists: The 12 stands in some schools of homeopathy for the modalities (12 environmental influences), in other esoteric pseudosciences for zodiac signs and houses in astrology, the 12 disciples and 12 senses of Rudolf Steiner. In homeopathy the 10 often stands for organ and emotional hierarchies, otherwise for heavenly tribes, number of perfection and regional centers of anthroposophy, the 10 commandments and 10 planets (incl. moon and sun). The number 5 is the often recommended dosage unit for taking globules, it also stands for the pentagram, the 5 elements, 5 seasons and 5 organs of Chinese medicine. In homeopathy, the number 4 partly stands for the 4 constitutions (corresponding to the four-juice doctrine of Hippocrates) and the 4 basic qualities; in other esotericism it stands for the quadrants in the horoscope, the 4 Vedas of Ayurveda, the 4 members of Anthroposophy, the 4 Gospels and Archangels.
Anyone who thinks that homeopathy has nothing to do with esotericism (Kabbalah, numerology, astrology, Ayurveda or anthroposophy etc.) is mistaken.
(Author: Dr. Theodor Much is the author of Der große Bluff: Irrwege und Lügen in der Alternativmedizin – The Great Bluff: Wrong ways and lies in alternative medicine; Goldegg Verlag, 2013)
Wir verwenden auf dieser Seite ausschließlich technisch notwendige Cookies, es sind keine Analysetools aktiv. Mehr auf unserer Datenschutzseite.
Settings
On the one hand, there is the established term “placebo effect”, which refers to the reactions that can also trigger empty forms of medication in the body. This actual placebo effect is not a constant quantity. It depends on the disease and is highly individual and unpredictable in its time of onset, strength and duration. But it also depends on the properties of the placebo: It is known that more expensive placebos have a stronger effect than cheap ones and red placebos have a stronger effect than green ones. The placebo effect cannot be calculated or controlled. It cannot be demanded by nature in such a way that it corresponds to its cliché.
English version will appear soon.
“Scientifically proven” or “scientifically refuted” are statements that are often heard, but they are not precise. More correct would be the formulation “according to previous knowledge” – or more extensively “according to previous knowledge gained with scientific methods, which have proven themselves because of their extraordinarily high explanatory potential”. (1).
Both are ineradicable narratives that we encounter daily. Behind this idea are assumptions that have simply nothing to do with reality.
“Antibiotics versus globules – really?
Many people assume that homeopathic remedies are made from herbal substances. But if you look at the long “drug lists” of homeopathic manufacturers, it quickly becomes clear that homeopathy and phytotherapy are two completely different things.
Fast thinking versus slow thinking
