KEYWORDS: Homeopathy/defense of; history; hospital-acquired pneumonia; present status

A Defense of Homeopathy

By Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, ND, MSW; Robert Ullman, ND; Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH; Richard Moskowitz, MD

Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, ND, MSW

Homeopathy: Safe, Effective, Natural Medicine

As a licensed naturopathic physician of 33 years, I witness the effectiveness of homeopathy every day in my practice. Having taken the Hippocratic Oath (“First, do no harm.”) when I became a naturopathic doctor, I can sleep well at night knowing that the type of medicine that I practice indeed does no harm. During our 27 years of writing this column, we have mostly presented long-term cases from our practice, which, hopefully, corroborate the effectiveness of homeopathy. Given the several billion prescriptions a year in the US alone, misprescribing and overprescribing of pharmaceutical drugs is inevitable and rampant. The harm caused by the abuse/overprescribing of opioids alone is now well known. That makes an even more compelling case for a form of medicine virtually free of side effects. It is hard for me to imagine a homeopathic doctor seriously harming a patient. But Jonathan has requested, for this issue on “The Best of Naturopathic Medicine,” a defense of homeopathic practice, as if one were called before a medical board. In this effort, I have called on several of my highly respected homeopathic colleagues to weigh in on this matter.

My overwhelmingly positive opinion of homeopathy runs quite contrary

to those who demean it, either claiming that it does not work, that it is placebo, or that there is nothing in our medicine. One must question the motivation and vehemence behind those who oppose homeopathy, often without having ever tried the medicines themselves. When my husband, Dr. Robert Ullman, ventured into the world of Twitter a year ago, he received, within 24 to 48 hours, such a barrage of vitriolic responses that he gave up tweeting permanently. Why individuals with no prior personal experience would spend so much time railing against it, I have no idea, unless perhaps they are being paid to do so. If that be the case, then perhaps this well-considered article would not change their minds, but our cumulative experience and research will hopefully appeal to anyone with an open mind.

I came to naturopathic and homeopathic medicine after being a psychiatric social worker in both inpatient and outpatient settings. I was appalled by the side effects of psychotropic medications experienced by far too many of the patients with whom I worked. The possibility of finding an effective natural solution for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and incapacitating depression and anxiety was what inspired me to look to naturopathic medicine and, as soon as I discovered it, to homeopathic medicine. My practice has included patients taking pharmaceutical drugs, at least upon beginning treatment, and sometimes along with homeopathy. But this is an exception. Often, homeopathy alone can produce positive, even dramatic results, even with children and adults on the autism spectrum. In addition to the emphasis on mental health, I enjoy a homeopathic general practice. Our eight books are full of actual clinical cases, and I still believe that the success of homeopathy with patients is its strongest defense. To deny access to this extremely gentle yet profoundly powerful and effective form of medicine would, to my way of thinking, be not only unfortunate, but criminal.

During the past three weeks, I had the opportunity to treat two patients, both hospitalized, receiving supposedly the highest standard of care that conventional medicine has to offer, yet deteriorating rapidly. Unlike the cases that we often present, these were individuals who could have died within a matter of days due to hospital-acquired pneumonia, despite aggressive conventional treatment. Homeopathy acted almost immediately and undeniably in both cases. Both patients were discharged, to the surprise of family and hospital staff, two to four days later. This was not the apparent course prior to homeopathic intervention.

R.C.

R.C., age 72, was admitted to a prominent university hospital for colon resection following a decades-long history of ulcerative colitis, which had become severe and uncontrollable despite conventional medication. Following surgery, three significant and serious problems ensued: Peristalsis did not resume; R.C. developed constant, violent hiccoughs; and, thirdly, he contracted hospital-acquired pneumonia. The excruciating post-surgical abdominal pain and weakness were eclipsed by these other problems. The hiccoughs had become incapacitating: preventing sleep, rest, and comfortable talking and breathing. R.C. was not previously a patient of mine, but his wife, a close friend, welcomed my assistance.

It took under twenty minutes to piece together the previous history of the colitis. R.C. had developed the original colitis over thirty years previously, after receiving a travel vaccine. That history in addition to his current prostration, the violent hiccoughs, and his embarrassment about his medical condition led to a clear homeopathic prescription of Thuja occidentalis (a conifer known commonly as Arbor vitae or cedar). R.C.’s wife administered a dose within two hours. The hiccoughs stopped within five minutes. They returned to a lesser degree a couple of hours later then resolved completely after a second dose. They did not return. The peristalsis resumed the following day. The pneumonia resolved. R.C. was discharged, to the surprise and relief of all, two days later. The hospitalization lasted one week in all.

M.B.

Within a day of R.C.’s hospitalization, a friend, 68 years old and a continent away, was admitted to a reputable emergency room with sudden, unbearable kidney pain. He had a past history of kidney stones treated with lithotripsy. By the next day, M.B. had weakened dramatically and had contracted hospital-induced pneumonia. The weakness was aggravated by his previously diagnosed Parkinson’s Disease. M.B. found talking difficult, his oxygen saturation level decreased, he became alarmingly weak, and he was administered oxygen in addition to a number of antibiotics. He was definitely not improving. In fact, his physician, aware that M.B.’s state was deteriorating, suggested the possibility of a ventilator to breathe for him.

I consulted with his wife because M.B. was in no state to speak with me. She described his symptoms and administered the indicated homeopathic remedy, Phosphoric acid. M.B.’s energy, breathing, and mood improved almost immediately. She continued to repeat the medicine whenever his condition worsened. Within two days, M.B. was consistently stronger and oxygen saturation levels had improved. At one point, the physician entered his hospital room, prepared to consider a transfer to the ICU. She took one look at his face and realized he was on the road to recovery. M.B. received three doses of the remedy over four days. He was released from the hospital the following day and continues to recover at home.

Both of these patients had a very close call with death, and, despite taking multiple powerful conventional medications, turned the corner clearly and quickly only after the addition of homeopathy. I would hope these cases, though anecdotal, would be impressive to a medical board calling into question the effectiveness of homeopathy. In India, where homeopathy is routinely used in hospital settings, such results are commonplace. In our decades of training with our Indian homeopathic mentors, we have observed hundreds of video training cases with remarkable results.

Robert Ullman, N.D.

What Is Homeopathy and What Is Its Status Worldwide?

To clarify any confusion or misconceptions about homeopathy, as compared to naturopathic medicine or other natural healing approaches, here is a synopsis of homeopathy’s history and present status.

Homeopathic medicine is a system of medicine based on the Law of Similars, commonly referred to as “like cures like.” This means that the same substance in nature that causes a particular set of symptoms will cure those same symptoms in someone who is ill. Homeopathic philosophy relies on the wisdom of the vital force, of which the defense mechanism is a part, to heal the organism—when given a push in the right direction by means of a homeopathic medicine.

Homeopathy is a unique form of medicine for a number of reasons:

• Literally any substance in nature—animal, plant, or mineral—can be made into a homeopathic medicine.

• That single substance is able to bring the organism into balance, resulting in healing of the whole person including all symptoms.

• The curative effects of that substance can last for days, weeks, or months, depending on the individual.

• The unique substance in nature is serially diluted, then succussed (shaken) to increase the energetic effect, which suggests why the more dilute, the stronger the medicine and the higher the potency.

• Homeopathic medicines are completely natural as well as remarkably safe, even for newborns, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems.

It was Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician who coined the word “homeopathy” meaning “similar suffering,” though the principle has existed since Hippocrates (400 BC). Hahnemann synthesized these principles into the medical science of homeopathy. He first published The Organon of the Art of Healing in 1810, with the final edition in 1843. Homeopathy spread throughout Europe and, ultimately, worldwide. Homeopathic medicine has enjoyed an unbroken tradition of use in the US since 1847, and was seen as a welcome relief from the barbaric medical practices of the time. Around the turn of the century in 1900, one out of five medical doctors in the US was a homeopath. Homeopathy was dealt a blow in 1910 with the publication of the Flexner Report, which denied funding to homeopathic colleges. Homeopathic education and practice resurged in the US in the late 1970s, around the time that most of the contributors to this article began our medical practices. Since that time, homeopaths with a variety of medical licenses and homeopathic certifications have largely enjoyed the freedom to practice this specialty.

Homeopathy is practiced in 66 countries, primarily in Europe, North America, South America (primarily Argentina and Mexico), and India. France, Germany, the UK, Switzerland, and India are the main countries where homeopathy has been accepted and practiced extensively since the 19th century. In the UK, homeopathy was widely used and supported by the Royal Family and their physicians. According to a 2010 article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal), an impressive 57% of people in Germany use homeopathic medicines. The BMJ recently reported that when German politicians recently sought to stop government reimbursement for homeopathic treatment, the German Medical Association announced its support for homeopathy and for reimbursement for homeopathic care. Further, the association’s president, Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe, defended homeopathic treatment in an official statement. He said that homeopathy was an important part of medicine. The interior ministry of Switzerland, on March 29, 2016, announced plans to recognize homeopathy as legitimate medicine,¹ along with holistic medicine, herbal medicine, acupuncture, and traditional Chinese medicine. They will acquire the same status as conventional medicine by May 2017.

Although these numbers for the use of homeopathic medicines in Europe may be substantial, the numbers are even more significant in India where there are 300,000 qualified homeopaths, 180 homeopathic medical schools, 7,500 government clinics, 307 hospitals, and 24 State Boards for the registration of qualified practitioners of homeopathy. Acknowledging the widespread popularity of homeopathy, a World Health Organization publication noted, “in the Indian subcontinent the legal position of the practitioners of homeopathy has been elevated to a professional level similar to that of a medical practitioner.”²

It is vitally important to health freedom in the US and throughout the world that qualified and reputable homeopathic practitioners, pharmacists, and manufacturers be allowed the freedom to practice their medicine, and that consumers enjoy the freedom to use and purchase homeopathic medicines and products as well as to receive treatment from qualified homeopathic practitioners.

Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH

Homeopathic Research

Research showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines has been published in many of the most respected medical journals in the world, including the Lancet,^{3 4} BMJ (British Medical Journal),^{5 6 7} Chest (publication of the American College of Chest Physicians),⁸ Rheumatology (publication of the British Society for Rheumatology),⁹ Pediatrics (publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics),¹⁰ Cancer (journal of the American Cancer Society),¹¹ Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal (publication of the European Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases),¹² European Journal of Pediatrics (publication of the Swiss Society of Pediatrics and the Belgium Society of Pediatrics),¹³ and numerous others.

Modern evidence for the physiological effects from homeopathic medicines is provided by a growing body of basic research that has shown up- and down-regulation of genetic expression from homeopathic medicines, including studies by Marzotto et al in 2014¹⁴ and 2016 ¹⁵; Khuda-Bukhsh¹⁶; and Bellavite et al.¹⁷ Even the highly prestigious Nature magazine edition in India¹⁸ published an important news report about one of these studies that showed these effects from a homeopathic medicine. Ultimately, at least a dozen laboratories¹⁹ have confirmed the persistence of nanomedicines in water made with homeopathic medicines, including labs at the University of Arizona,²⁰ Northwestern University, University of California at Davis, University of Mumbai, Russian Academy of Science, and India Institute of Technology.

The largest review of research on homeopathy that has ever taken place, the Swiss government’s Health Technology Assessment report on homeopathic medicine,²¹ is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo-controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the “real world effectiveness” with observational studies as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physiochemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells) as well as epidemiological studies and cost-effectiveness studies.

After assessing basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.

The newest meta-analysis (a systematic review of research) on homeopathic medicine²² chose to evaluate only those clinical trials that provided individualized treatment. In reviewing the “highest quality studies,” the researchers found that homeopathic patients were almost twice as likely to experience a therapeutic benefit as those given a placebo. Further, in reviewing a total of 22 clinical trials, the homeopathic patients experienced greater than 50% likelihood to have benefited from the homeopathic treatment than those given a placebo.

One of the strongest statements in this article was the confirmation that four of the five leading previous systematic reviews of homeopathic research also found a benefit from homeopathic treatment over that of placebo: “Five systematic reviews have examined the RCT research literature on homeopathy as a whole, including the broad spectrum of medical conditions that have been researched and by all forms of homeopathy: four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, with important caveats, the homeopathic intervention probably differs from placebo.”

The ultimate observation of this significant review of homeopathic research is that there IS a difference between homeopathy and placebo, despite what skeptics and the media tend to assume and assert.

Richard Moskowitz, M. D.

For Homeopathy: A Practicing Physician’s Perspective

The basic “law” of homeopathy, the phenomenon that medicines tend to elicit or provoke the same symptoms that they are meant to relieve, is widely familiar even in allopathic circles where “paradoxical” effects, such as antihypertensives raising blood pressure (e.g. Catapres), antidepressants making depression worse to the point of suicide (e.g., Prozac), and so on, are commonplace and well-documented in standard reference texts like the Physicians’ Desk Reference.

No matter what the correct explanation of these mysteries may prove to be, it is also undeniably true that dedicated physicians have continued to follow the same principles and to practice medicine on the basis of them for more than two hundred years, and now do so on every continent and in most countries of the world. In the face of determined opposition, general ridicule, and the sacrifice of more prominent and lucrative careers, the mere fact that homeopathic medicine has managed to survive intact for so long, and even continued to grow and develop under such adverse conditions speaks for itself. Its singular propensity to attract qualified doctors from almost every country at a time when allopathic medicine has become the dominant model of health care in the world represents not only a significant historical achievement in its own right but also a persuasive argument for the validity of the Law of Similars, the efficacy of Hahnemann’s infinitesimal doses, and the ultimate authenticity of the homeopathic phenomenon itself.

I have practiced general and family medicine for 44 years. For the past 37 years, I have treated my patients with homeopathic remedies exclusively, not because I believe that pharmaceutical drugs have no value; I often refer patients whom I’ve not been able to help to my allopathic colleagues and am more than grateful for what they do. I choose to practice homeopathy, in part, because I prefer to try a gentler and safer approach first, whenever possible, but mainly because matching the treatment to the individuality of the patient allows and encourages a deeper and more comprehensive level of healing than is possible with conventional drugs.

I will give a few examples from the early years of my practice. The first was an eight-pound baby girl who was born covered with thick meconium, took one gasp, and then breathed no more. Brisk suctioning produced only more of the same. At this point the child lay limp, white, and motionless with a heartbeat of 40 per minute, responding feebly to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation but incapable of breathing on her own. I put a few tiny granules of homeopathic Arsenicum album 200C on her tongue. Almost instantaneously she awoke with a jolt, crying and flailing, her heart pounding at 140 per minute, her skin glowing pink with the flame of new life. The whole evolution took no more than a few seconds. After a night in the hospital to be on the safe side, mother and baby went home in the morning with no outward sign that anything untoward had happened. Experiences like these are imprinted for life in every practitioner’s mind.

Of course, I am well aware that this could have happened spontaneously without any remedies at all, for the child was well-formed and appeared normal in every other respect; and anyway, it was just one patient, a mere “anecdote,” utterly without statistical significance. But all of us who were present, including my nurse, the baby’s mother and father, and I daresay the child herself, by now fully-grown and undoubtedly steeped in the legend of her birth, know as surely as we can know anything that the conjunction of the infinitesimal dose and her abrupt awakening was no mere coincidence.

My second case was that of a 34-year-old RN who had been plagued with severe endometriosis since her teens. Already a veteran of four surgeries to remove large blood-filled cysts from her bladder and pelvic organs and several courses of male hormones to suppress the condition, she came seeking only to restore her menstrual cycle, having long since abandoned any hopes of childbearing. While intensely painful at first, her periods had become “dead,” dark-brown, and scanty from so many years of surgery and hormonal treatments in the past.

After a few doses of homeopathic medicines, her menstrual flow became fuller and richer; and within six months, she was pregnant. By the next time I saw her for a different ailment nearly eight years later, she had had two healthy children after uncomplicated pregnancies and normal vaginal births and had remained in good health ever since. While no one can attribute such an outcome to homeopathy or any other agency in precise, linear fashion, my patient has never stopped thanking me for it. This is reason enough to be grateful for a process that is inherently catalytic and persuasive, rather than forcible or compulsory.

Still less can these happy endings be imputed to any unusual skill of mine since they are entirely comparable to what every competent prescriber has seen or could easily duplicate, and I could just as well have cited other patients whose conditions were far from hopeless, who believed in homeopathy and in me, but whom I was nevertheless unable to help.

To be sure, homeopathy is far from a panacea for all ills. Homeopathy is a difficult and exacting art; and even after years of study and practice, a skilled prescriber may need to try several medicines before obvious benefit is obtained. In some cases, despite the most dedicated efforts, there is little or no benefit at all. But if the ultra-dilute medicines can be seen to have worked well and often enough to sustain me in a general practice for 45 years, like so many others over the past two centuries, that, too, is more than enough to refute assumptions that they are no treatment at all.

Although deeply flattered by the common insinuation that we heal our patients solely by some kind of magic or shamanic spell that we cast over them unawares, I continue to believe what my experience has taught me, that the “placebo effect”—that starved and tattered remnant of the innate self-healing capacity—is an essential component of all healing, even with pharmaceuticals, but by no means the whole of it.   

References

1. Swiss to recognize homeopathy as legitimate medicine. March 29, 2016. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/complementary-therapies_swiss-to-recognise-homeopathy-as-legitimate-medicine/42053830.

2. Ullman D. The FDA and Regulation of Homeopathic Medicines. The Huffington Post. Sept. 23, 2015.

3. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet. 1986 Oct 18;2(8512):881-6.

4. Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG, et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet. 1994 Dec 10;344(8937):1601-6.

5. Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH et al. Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ. 2000 Aug 19; 321(7259): 471–476.

6. Davies AE, Davey RW. Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis. BMJ. 1989 Oct 7; 299(6704): 918.

7. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ. 1991 Feb 9;302(6772):316-23.

8. Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M, et al. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients. Chest. 2005;127(3):936-941.

9. Bell IR, Lewis DA 2^nd, Brooks AI, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004 May;43(5):577-82.

10. Jacobs J, Jiménez LM, Gloyd SS, Gale JL, Crothers D. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics. 1994 May;93(5):719-25.

11. Oberbaum M, Yaniv I, Ben-Gal Y, et al. A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication TRAUMEEL in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation. Cancer. 2001 Aug 1;92(3):684-690.

12. Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jiménez-Pérez M, Crothers D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003 Mar;22(3):229-34.

13. Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, et al. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;164(12):758-67.

14. Marzotto M, Olioso D, Bellavite P. Gene expression and highly diluted molecules. Front Pharmacol. 2014; 5:237.

15. Marzotto M, Bonafini C, Olioso D, et al. Arnica montana Stimulates Extracellular Matrix Gene Expression in a Macrophage Cell Line Differentiated to Wound-Healing Phenotype. PlosOne. 10 Nov 2016; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166340.

16. Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Current trends in high dilution research with particular reference to gene regulatory hypothesis. The Nucleus. 2014 Apr;57(1):3-17.

17. Bellavite P, Signorini A, Marzotto M, et al. Cell sensitivity, non-linearity and inverse effects. Homeopathy. 2015 Apr;104(2):139-160.

18. Homeopathic drugs modify gene expression in cancer cells. 23 Nov 2015. http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2015.154

19. Bell IR, Sarter B, Standish LI, Banerji P, Banerji P. Low Doses of Traditional Nanophytomedicines for Clinical Treatment: Manufacturing Processes and Nonlinear Response Patterns. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2015 Jun;15(6):4021-38.

20. Bell IR. Nonlinear Effects of Nanoparticles: Biological Variability From Hermetic Doses, Small Particle Sizes, and Dynamic Adaptive Interactions. Dose Response. 2014 May; 12(2):202-232.

21. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, et al. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementmed. 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29.

22. Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, Legg LL, et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualized homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews. 6 Dec 2014;3:142.

Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, ND, MSW

and

Robert Ullman, ND

are licensed naturopathic physicians, board-certified in homeopathy, in practice for over 33 and 35 years. Columnists for the Townsend Letter for 27 years, they are also authors of eight books on homeopathy. They practice at The Northwest Center for Homeopathic Medicine in Edmonds, WA (425) 774-5599. The doctors treat patients in person and by phone or videoconference: www.healthyhomeopathy.com

Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH,

has authored ten books on homeopathy (see www.homeopathic.com for details) and has created a new e-course on “Learning to use a homeopathic medicine kit” (Continuing Education units for MDs/Category I, RNs, and other health professionals. See www.HomeopathicFamilyMedicine.com for details).

Richard Moskowitz, MD

, age 77, has practiced homeopathic family medicine exclusively since 1974. He is the author of Homeopathic Medicines in Pregnancy and Childbirth (1992), Resonance: The Homeopathic Point of View (2001); Plain Doctoring: Selected Writings, 1983-2013 (2014), More Doctoring: Selected Writings, Vol. 2, 1980-2014 (2015), and Vaccines: a Reappraisal (2017).