Paul Theriault
To begin with, the blog post must be acknowledged as being a mere snapshot of a very vast field. I apologize for the incompleteness, but an tire book would be required for a full understanding, and I do suspect that it would be quickly out of date.
As some background, Homeopathy has a long history of clinical trials, and testing in humans. These trials have always generated a great deal of contention, and it has always been disputed that the effect of Homeopathic interventions is due to the effect of the remedies. Other factors, such as the counseling, other lifestyle interventions recommended, and even the poor social skills of allopathic doctors in comparison have been suggested as the factors responsible. The most popular explanation has been the placebo effect, in short, the phenomena of patients healing despite a treatment which is not expected to effect them. Homeopaths have responded to these criticisms with record of the treatment of children and animals, presumably not subject to placebo effect, and experiments on model organisms, plants, cell cultures in test tubes or other biological systems, which most definitely are not placebo susceptible.
Homeopathy has a very long history of evaluation in model organisms. While the primary data of Homeopathy have always been gathered in provings of substances on healthy individuals, many researchers have experimented with homeopathically prepared substances, and their effects on living organisms. The most interesting example of this work in the 19th century is that of Charles Darwin, (Many thanks to Dana Ullman for his excellent work on this subject, which is my primary source). Charles, having yet to write his famous book on evolution, was extremely ill, having failed to gain relief from convention treatment, sought care from Dr James Gully, a medically trained homeopath, whom also used hydrotherapy a great deal (in a therapeutic style that is suspiciously similar to modern Naturopathic medicine).
Darwin was not a great believer in Homeopathy, and was confounded by this recover for the rest of his life. He conducted one of the earlier series of experiments using model organisms, in his case the Drosera plant ( itself also a homeopathic remedy). In his experiments, Darwin was able to show a response by the Drosera plants to 1/20 millions of a grain of an ammonia salt. Darwin was enormously reticent to publish this information, fearing it would detract from the reception of his already contentious evolutionary theory.
Since this rather historically fascinating example, a large number of studies have been conducted. As a May 2018 review of the literature concluded, there were about 183 publications on the subject. Publications averaged about 2 per year from the 1970s-200s with a jump to about 5.5 per year afterwards. Furthermore quality of publications has markedly increased with 13% of publications high quality before 2000 compared to 44% afterwards.
One specific aspect of this research, is Homeopathic research on plant models. One review in 2015 found 157 studies, but that only 48 included adequate information to evaluate them. A second study done in 2018 found similar results. Several studies were replications, on successful, but 4 unsuccessful, with several possible variables identified.In general standardized procedures were recommended, including negative controls, and better control and identification of interference factors.
Research on abiotically stressed plants ( plants stressed by environmental conditions, instead of pathology) have also been accomplished, with reproducible and significant effects found, including effects beyond Avogadro’s number, although interestingly, one replication occurred generating opposite results. Again the authors stressed the need for replication and standardized procedures. A similar study on diseased plants as well was done in 2009. The authors as well found significant and reproducible effects of Homeopathic preparations on plant models, again beyond Avogadro’s number, though again standardized procedures are required, as is more replication.
Another fascinating body of work is the examination oh Homeopathic remedies through the medium of NMR. This method has, interestingly, been shown by several studies, to be able to detect differences between different Homeopathic potencies. In one recent study, changes in the emission from water was determined to be altered by both crude and ultramolecular homeopathic preparations in water. In another fascinating study, differing triturations of the same remedy at a different potency also displayed differing emission spectra. Another study examined triturated potencies of zincum metallicum in terms of their physical properties. Many properties were not altered, but did find that thermogravimetric and differential scanning calorimetry differed between homeopathically prepared and control samples.
The final say in this matter should perhaps be towards the greatest study on the subject, a 2015 literature review solely on replications in in vitro research in Homeopathy. This paper focused solely on experiments involving potencies diluted beyond Avogadro’s number, with no possible confounding by particles being present.Trials were classified as yielding either compatible results, no results, or opposite results. The null hypothesis of this trial was that no results was the default states, indicating no physiological effect. Of 126 studies found 98% were found to be replications, with 70.4% achieving comparable results, 20.4% obtaining opposite results, and 9.2% no results. With these results, the null hypothesis can be firmly rejected. In terms of raw numbers 28 experimental models were replicated, 24 with comparable results, 12 with no effect, and 6 with opposite effect. Five models were externally and independently replicated with comparable results.
Within this paper we can clearly see definite progress in the in vitro science of Homeopathy. A previous publication in 2007 found similar ( though lower numbers) of results, with a notation that both high quality trials do show effects and that no model was universally reproducible yet.
The issue of methodology looms large in this field of research. To understand this we will follow the ongoing and fascinating saga of one research model’s development, the Basophil model.
The Basophil model of research in Homeopathy began by accident, when a laboratory assistant of Jacque Benviniste, used a wrong (diluted) preparation of Immunoglobulin E, which caused a reaction ( degranulation) in the basophils it was administered to. Beneviniste noticed this phenomena, and began experimenting with it. He discovered that agitated dilutions performed better than simple dilutions, and this drew a strong parallel with Homeopathy, which was much more salient in French medicine than in North America. Beneviniste shared his research with 4 labs throughout the world, which managed to replicate the results.
Beneviniste published his paper in Nature, and it was accompanied by an unprecedented editorial, urging a suspension of judgement over the results, and distancing the editorial team from the research. Subsequently, the magician James Randi (who is not, despite his pretensions, a scientist), and John Maddox and fraud expert Walter Stuart. They, lacking expertise in the technique, in a very small number of attempts, failed to replicate the experiment, and concluded it was a fluke caused by sloppy methods or some other error, ignoring replication having already been done by several skilled teams throughout the world.
Several other teams attempted to replicate the findings, with mixed results. According to a lacture by Dr Peter Fischer, the experiments were replicated about 30% of the time. This was largely to do with the methodology. In Beneviniste’s methods, homeopathic style preparations of Immunoglobulin E were prepared and administered to cultures of basophils. When basophils come into contact with Immunoglobulin E, degranulation is the result. At differing dilutions of Immunoglobulin E, differing rates of degranulation were observed in some cultures, including those beyond avogadro’s number. Numerous factors appeared to be involved in whether basophils degranulated, resulting in the lower 30% reproduction rate.
Not that none of this subtlety in research methodology has ever been reported in the conventional media. Nor has the many replications been mentioned. Beneviniste is still cited as a fraud by many on the basis of a single experiment by non scientists, despite repeated ( though low) replication by other skilled scientists. As I have repeatedly shown (here and here) many organizations opposed to Naturopathic medicine and Homeopathy will use a number of fake news tactics to discredit therapies, despite often very good science in support of them.
Benevinistes model was later modified. As in actual clinical practice, where only people in certain pathological states were found to respond to a remedy, it was found that basophils responded to Homeopathic preparations when in a certain pathological state. Basophils here hence sensitized to pathological stimuli, then exposed to homeopathic dilutions of histamine, and then exposed to an antigen. The percentage of basophils that degranulated was measured, and found to be lesser in the group treated with Homeopathic histamine. This response did vary with the homeopathic potency of histamine administered, with a bell curve style peak from 15-17C. The main paper with this updated model was published in the journal Homeopathy in 2009.
The advantage of this more complex procedure using presensitization was a procedure which was much more consistent in terms of replication. This model has been replicated repeatedly, one such published replication can be found here. The procedure was, in 2009, replicated by 4 independent laboratories. This number has likely increased considerably in the 9 years since. According to a lecture by Dr. Fisher, this model was about 60% replicable, having far fewer variables influencing results.
The latest methods in this field are achieving consistent and reproducible effects using sensitized organisms, a phenomena that parallels clinical observation in Homeopathy. Interestingly this body of research has confirmed one clinical observation of Homeopathy seen for decades, that of a bell curve. Organisms tend to respond to only a certain range of potentiates, and both higher and lower potencies than their range will produce no results.
This is in strong contrast to the conventional model of pharmacology, which has found S shaped curves far more typically when observing physiological responses to drugs. Drugs, when administered to a responsive system, typically have a threshold below which they have no activity, followed by a phase in 
which small increases or decreases in concentrations of a drug cause massive changes in activity, followed by a plateau in which the effects of a drug do not increase very much, compared with the rapid phase. These two curves are displayed in the figure to the right. S curves are shown in blue, and bell curves in red.
This contrast has fascinating ramifications. The first being that Homeopathic medicines do not act like crude drugs, that there is a fundamental activity, profoundly based on the amount of potentisation and triturations, that exerts a physiological effect on the body, independent of chemical constituents. This implies a number of factors playing into biology that have very little understanding within modern biology. A number of profound biological and medical discoveries await for those brave enough to explore the implications of these data.
In the face of this large amount of research, arguments that Homeopathy has no effect are not sustainable. Those who make such arguments are either ignorant, or are deliberately being deceptive.
To summarize, an available research presentation on the latest Homeopathy research is given below.
Thank you for reading!
Image Credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Funci%C3%B3n_sigmoide_02.svg
Crocodilians are one of the least well known groups of terrestrial vertebrates. As such any provings of them would be extremely useful. At the moment, only two Alligatoridae are reasonably well proven. We have a few clinical cases of the Crocodylus genus (each without a known species) and no proven members of the Ca
imanidae, Gharials, or Crocodile divisions of the Crocodilians.
Due to the endangered status of many species, provings of species threatened with extinction should be a higher priority. In particular the Chinese alligator, Alligator sinensis, is critical, as only about 120 remain in the wild. Other endangered species such as the Gharial, Gavialis gangeticus, Orinoco crocodile, Crocodylus intermedius, Phillipine crocodile, Crocodylus mindorensis, Cuban crocodile, Crocodylus rhombifer, and the Siamese crocodile, Crocodylus siamensis, are all endangered as well, and would make excellent candidates for proving.
Photo credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alligator#/media/File:ChineseAlligator.jpg
Hi Everyone. Happy Naturopathic Medicine Week 2018.
Every year I use Naturopathic Medicine Week as a reason to summarize whole Naturopathic research, highlighting recent research, and summarizing the overall field. I have decided not to focus on research on individual modalities like Acupuncture, Homeopathy or other specific medicines, but to focus on whole Naturopathic research, as this is what patient’s receive from Naturopathic Doctors, like myself. You can find my previous summary here. Contrary to the Fake News style propaganda used by detractors of our discipline, Naturopathic Medicine does have a wonderful research base of articles attesting to it’s efficacy in treating a number of conditions, many of which will be detailed below. We do not receive the large government subsidies for research that allopathic disciplines do in Canada and the United States, but the research we have conducted using the funding available is impressive.
To start with, for those unfamiliar with Naturopathic medicine, here is a great introductory video!
Naturopathic care in Cardiovascular disease was recently examined in a clinical trial. 246 postal workers received Naturopathic care (207 completed the study) in addition to normal family medicine from their MD. Lab chemistry was taken before and after Naturopathic care,and their risk of a major cardiovascular even was computed using the Framingham Risk Score method of computing the likelihood of a Cardiovascular event, and the Adult Risk Panel III to compute the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. One group in the study received Naturopathic care plus normal medical care, and another received only normal medical care. In this study a highly significantly reduced risk of a major cardiovascular event (risk reduction in control group of 10.81, risk in Naturopathic group of 7.74% for a reduction of 3.07%) and a reduction of metabolic syndrome (48.48% control group, 31.58% Naturopathic group for a reduction 16.9%).
This data was further analyzed in another paper for the economic impact of Naturopathic treatment. The above trial resulted in (corresponding to a 3.3% decreased risk of a Cardiovascular event) in a savings of $1138 in costs to society and $1187 in employer costs per year of Naturopathic treatment. The cost savings of livelong Naturopathic care that could be speculated on based on this remain staggering.
In response to this trial, this MD in CMAJ endorsed the idea of delegating some aspects of Cardiovascular care from Medical to Naturopathic Doctors. Many MDs would oppose this, but a significant minority of our Allopathic cousins would gladly cooperate with us in patient management.
Diabetes has also been examined in this way. In one trial, shown here, showed 65% of patients achieving a favorable outcome with 19% being able to stop antidiabetic medications completely. Furthermore, this trial clearly linked this to the Naturopathic intervention, with a 0.4% reduction in HA1C shown with with poor compliance to the interventions, 1.1% with moderate compliance and 1.7% with excellent compliance. For those who do not know, HA1c is a measure of glycated hemoglobin, a long term measure of blood sugar levels. Higher levels indicated higher chronic blood sugar. A second trial, shown here, in which not only did patient compliance and self care improve significantly, but HA1c also decrease relative to conventional care only at 6 and 12 months, although non-significantly.
I uncovered two other smaller studies on childhood otitis media, or middle ear infections . In the first study, 103 children with otitis media were treated with either a proprietary herbal product, or with an anesthetic and pain was assessed with a visual and an analogue scale over 3 days. Both groups resulted in very similar statistically significant reductions in pain. In the second study 171 children with ear pain were given either an anesthetic. While results were thought to be mostly due to time, the herbal ear drops did report a better outcome/
Naturopathic care of anxiety has a number of trials available now. In the first, published in 2009, 81 participants were randomized to recieve either Naturopathic care of a standardized Psychotherapy treatment. Thier symptoms were tracked with the Beck Anxiety inventory, the Short form-36, Fatigue Symptom Inventory, and MYMOP forms. The patient retention was high ( 75%) for at least 8 weeks. Both treatments resulted in highly significant reductions of the Beck Inventory. However, the Naturopathic treatments resulted in a highly significant ( p<0.003) reduction in anxiety relative to the standardized psychotherapy.
In the second more recent trial 112 patients from a Naturopathic community health centre in King County Washington were followd while undergoing Naturopathic treatment for depression and anxiety. Their initial and ending GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores (both standardized questionaires to measure anxiety and depression respectively). The patients responded wonderfully, with a reduction of about 50% of their scores (depression average scores: 16.4 initially to 8.4, Anxiety average scores: 12.4 initially to 7.2). these results were highly statistically significant (p<0.0001).
Another Clinical trial on the Naturopathic treatment of rotator cuff tendonitis was recently published. In it, a group of postal workers with diagnosed rotator cuff tendontis received either a stanrd set of physiotherapy exercises to do on thier own (an approach not unlike that which many MDs in family practice will use before a physiotherapy referral) as well as a matched placebo. Pain was measured using Shoulder pain and disability index scores, visual analogue pain score, Short form 36, and MYMOP. 87% of participants completed 8 weeks of treatment, SPADI scores decreased by 54.5% (p<0.0001) in the Naturopathic care group and 18% (p<0.0241) in the Exercise group. All measures showed significant differences in favor of Naturopathic care, with SPADI showing a difference probability of <0.0001 and no major adverse outcomes reported.
In a similar trial 75 postal employees with back pain greater than 6 weeks duration were given either Naturopathic medicine or standardized exercises ( again similar to what they might recieve at an MD practice) for 12 weeks. Progress was measured using the Oswestry disability questionaire, as well as the SF-36, lower back range of motion, weight loss and BMI. 92% completed at least 8 weeks of treatment. Back pain reduced significantly in the Naturopathic group (-6.92 on Oswestry, p<0.0001) and all other measure improved significantly as well.
The above trial was analyzed for economic impact. In the analysis, employees experienced 9.4 more perfect health days and reduced societal ( read employer) costs of $1212 per participant over the course of the study. The intervention cost $154 per day, compared with lost productivity costs of $178 per day, representing a return on investment of7.9%. Individuals participating saved $1096 each. Again this was from a single course of treatment. Imagine the cost savings applied society wide, particularily in countries like Canada with socialized medicine.
Another small Indian study showed significant improvements in PEFR, VC, FVC, FEV1, FEV/FEC%, MVV< ESR and Absolute Eosinophil count in Asthma patients undergoing a Naturopathic and Yogic treatment regimen.
In another study, patient outcomes from Naturopathic and Allopathic medical practices were compared in the treatment of menopausal symptoms. Consistent with other research, Naturopathic patients reported higher income, lower rates of smoking, higher rates of exercise, but interestingly, greater rates of fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes. Both patient groups resulted in improvements in anxiety, hot flashes, vaginal dryness and menstrual changes. Significantly better results were found in insomnia and fatigue.
One study was done on patients with Autism, 67 patients ranging from 3-58 years were given supplementation, with additional naturopathic treatments, such as enzymes, carnitine, epsom salts baths and a diet free of gluten, casein and soy. Lab results show a significant improvement of blood nutrient levels, and nonverbal IQ and autism symptoms also significantly improved.
Another study examines Polycystic ovarian syndrome patients who had undergone a Naturopathic and Yogic regimen for 12 weeks. 25 patients were given the intervention, while 25 others were placed on a wait list. Significant changes were observed in ovarian morphology and body measurements.
Recent Indian research has focused on a number of areas of integration of Naturopathic medicine and conventional care. This paper reviews the multiple ways many Naturopathic agents can aid in modulating cell signalling pathways in cancer. Another paper shows a similar conclusion, with Natural compounds showing great promise in decreasing resistance to one method of cell self destruction in cancers.
Much recent research has focused on the types of patients Naturopathic Doctors see. In one recent study a survey of 300483 visits to a Naturopathic teaching clinic was examined. It was found that Naturopathic clinics saw a similar range of problems to other primary care practices, that patients paid out of pocket more (unsurprisingly) and that Naturopathic clinics offered discounted care far more often.
Another recent study discussed characteristics of Pediatric patients coming to CCNM, a Naturopathic college in Toronto. Furthermore, a cross section of Naturopathic patients as a whole at CCNM was done, showing the incredibly wide variety of issues people come to Naturopathic Doctors with.
Another fascinating direction of research has emerged in the applications of Public health models of research to Naturopathic care, rather than more allopathic models a potential research enterprise with much potential. Another study measured the characteristics of rural Naturopathic practice in Australia, showing the important role played by naturopaths in the provision of underserved rural populations. Another study showed a high level of patient and staff satisfaction resulting from integration of Naturopathic medicine into an acute care hospital.
Perhaps most intriguingly in our survey of research is this paper, published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. India is in the slow process of constructing a healthcare system of Universal coverage (often jokingly termed Modicare after the Indian Prime Minister Narendera Modi). Unlike in Countries such as Canada which have long traditions of public medicine that were built during the low point of Holistic medicine, in the 1960s, India likely will be including all systems of medicine in it’s public scheme, along with allopathic care. AYUSH is the term in India used for such systems, including Ayurveda, Therapeutic Yoga, Unani, Sidda, Homeopathy and Naturopathy. The above mentioned paper examined the AYUSH systems in light of a report on the Principles of Universal Care produced by the Planning Commission of India. In that paper, the authors conclude that not only does AYUSH meet the standards the India government wishes to see in it’s Universal system, they would actually further it’s goals more effectively in many cases than Allopathic care alone would be able to.
Hi Everyone. This post has been brewing for a considerable period of time. I have decided to release it finally, rather than have the same conversation with people, over and over again, about the evidence base of Homeopathy.
In short: Homeopathy does have an evidence base. This evidence base is, when taken as a whole and evaluated in light of the way Homeopathy is practiced, positive. Homeopathic methodology does indeed contain many aspects which makes evaluating Homeopathy in a clinical trial difficult, but these problems are slowly being overcome through improved clinical methodologies. Other lines of evidence supporting Homeopathy include laboratory studies and historical records of Homeopathy’s use, particularly in infectious diseases.
Now to begin, clinical trials are the standard method by which modern Allopathic medicine evaluates the outcome of most interventions, and have been taken up by other branches of medicine as well. This method is, on the whole, designed to compare a treatment, and a non treatment (often termed a placebo) a treatment deliberately calculated to be ineffective. The results are numerically calculated in some way and compared to one another using a number of statistical tools. Results are either statistically significant (i.e. found by the methods being used to be greater than what would occur by chance) or statistically insignificant (found by methods to be within the bounds of what would occur by chance).
Homeopathy has been evaluated by means of clinical trials for hundreds of years. However the nature of Homeopathic prescribing, the deeply detailed nature of casetaking, the therapeutic nature of casetaking itself, and the multiple adjustments and refinements of potency needed during therapy, which makes placebo control difficult all combine together to make clinical trials challenging to undertake for genuine, pure Homeopathy. Methodological refinements have indeed been made to the clinical trial procedure over the past several difficulties, but they have not been completely successful, often creating outcomes in which the controls of a clinical trial result in data which are less than what one would expect from clinical practice.
Within the basic framework of a clinical trial, many variables can influence results, biasing the results in a particular direction. The kinds of influence have been assessed by researchers over the years, and tabulated. Several such measures exist, but the one in this link is particularly widely used.
Homeopathy has been examined by multiple clinical trials to determine efficacy throughout the years. Many of these trials have been negative. Many have been positive, until recently, the compilation of the data from these trials had not been done in such a way as to examine the validity of Homeopathy as a whole. Recently however this strategy has been adapted. Termed a Meta-analysis, this method has been used in a number of fields with sufficient research, allowing for larger conclusions to be drawn. I will go through them, followed by a summary table at the end of this discussion.
The first meta-analysis was preformed in 1991 by Kleijnen and published in BMJ. It found, in the small amount of clinical trials available at the time, a positive result.
The next meta-analysis was published in the Lancet in 1997 by Linde. Of 185 trials found, 115 met inclusion criterea, with 89 having adequate data for inclusion. Linde did not differentiate methodology, but pooled studies of all varieties of Homeopathy regardless and found an Odds ratio of 2.45 (with a 95% confidence interval of 2.05-2.93). This is a strongly positive result.When corrective factors for publication bias were added, the odds ration decreased to 1.78 (1.03-3.1), weaker but still positive. Analyzing only high quality trials resulted in results of 1.66 (1.33-2.08). Linde was repeatedly criticized for lumping data of different quality together, and for lumping together trials of individualized and nonindividualized homeopathy, so further studies were conducted.
Ernst also conducted several reviews in this period this first (Ernst E: Are highly dilute homeopathic remedies placebos? Perfusion 1998;11:291.) purported to reanalyze Linde’s 1997 analysis in light of criticisms that it evaluated many conditions, included nonindividualized trials, and include lower potency preparations that could potentially contain molecules of the original product.His analysis of the, in his view, higher quality studies, shows an odds ratio of 0. Hahn has criticized this study as including only 5 studies, and thus far less valid than Linde’s original 1997 analysis, despite it’s flaws.
In 1998 Linde conducted a study of clinical trials of individualized Homeopathy. he found a number of methodological and quality issues, but pooling the data regardless, found a positive result with an odds ratio of 1.62 (95% CI 1.17-2.23). However, when the analysis was restricted to only higher quality trials, no significant effect was seen, though a positive trend was observed Odds ratio of 1.12 (0.77-1.44). As discussed above, the many issues in clinical trials of Homeopathy at the time, make this conclusion not terribly surprising, though this problem is remedied in more current research. Linde explored this in a subsequent article in 1999 exploring the effect of trial quality on effect size in Homeopathy studies. He found that higher trial quality often produced smaller effect sizes. This is important, as many critics seized upon this as proof of lack of efficacy of Homeopathy, forgetting that other research has shown this effect to be consistent throughout medical research ( ie not a specific problem to Homeopathy).
In 2000 Ernst again published another Meta-analysis, in which he criticized Linde’s 1998 analysis as flawed due to the weaknesses of the studies used. His response was to extrapolate trends based on Linde’s 1999 study of trial quality, and suggest a linear trend (when in fact the data is asymptotic), that trials with a perfect quality would theoretically move towards results of 0. This is strongly criticized by Hahn as prioritizing imagined and extrapolated data over real data, particularly bizarre when he had access to the real data.
The next meta-analysis was preformed by Cucherat et al in 2000 and published in the European Journal of Pharmacology. It took 118 trials, judged 16 to meet inclusion criteria, and then combined p values together to form a grand p value, an extremely unusual method of analysis, one which Hahn notes to be likely to give the least favorable statistical result to Homeopathy). Despite this odd method of analysis, the results of the analysis were positive with a grand P value of <0.000036 (i.e. the results had a less than 3.6 out of 100 000 chance of being due to chance). Studies with less than 10% dropouts had a slightly lower p value of 0.084 (8.4 out of a 1000 chance of being due to placebo) and studies with less than 5% dropout had a p value of 0.082, on marginally above the generally accepted threshold for statistical significance. However this standard was extraordinarily rigorous, with dropout rates of less than 20% being commonly accepted as adequate.
The next Meta-analysis of Homeopathy as a whole was Shang, published by the Lancet in 2005. This study took an extraordinarily bizarre approach of choosing 110 randomized controlled double blind trials, and then “matching” them to 110 comparable allopathic trials, with some high quality Homeopathy studies being excluded solely due to a comparable allopathic trial not being able to be found. The data in these 110 trials were not combined to creat an odds ratio. Instead the data from all but 21 trials of Homeopathy were excluded due to unspecified quality measures. The authors then excluded, for unclear reasons, all but 8 trials and came up with an insignificant odds ratio of 0.88 (0.65-1.19). Fascinatingly, the identity of these 8 studies were not listed in the original publication, but were released several months later, after the media circus around this result had died down. Skeptical organizations created a vast amount of propaganda using what we now call Fake News something we will also see occurring with the more recent NHMRC report. In both cases, the subsequently revealed errors were not reported in either the popular or skeptical presses.
These results have been heavily criticized by Homeopaths and statisticians, with the overall opinion that this trial should not have been published. These arguments are summarized by the Homeopathy Research Institute, but the most significant perhaps belong to Ludtke and Hahn. Ludtke analyses Shang to find that the results gained out of his analysis are highly dependent on the subsection of trials selected, with his results being almost entirely due to a single large nonindividualized trial of Homeopathy. Hahn comments that the funnel plot tool used by Shang is completely inadequate to evaluate treatment effects in different medical conditions and that in order to reach his conclusions of Homeopathy lacking effect beyond placebo, 90% of clinical trials must be excluded. In fact, it has been determined by Ludtke, that if Shang had included all 21 higher quality trials, even with his bizarre selection criteria, he would have found a statistically significant effect greater than placebo.
The next major metanalyses of Homeopathy was in 2014, by Mathie, published in Systematic review. It included all available RCTs, and rated all of them with several quality assessment measures. Unfortunately, again likely due to methodological issues, no trial rated as no risk of bias in all domains. However the trials that had low or unclear risk of bias in one domain were analyzed. 22 trials were had extractable data, and were subject to analysis creating a significant odds ratio of 1.53 (1.22-1.91). Restricting the analysis to trials rated as reliable evidence created an even higher odds ratio of 1.93 (1.16-3.38). This is explained wonderfully by Mathie himself in the following short presentation:
This analysis stands at the present day (April 2018 as of writing) as the most current, complete and unbiased of all reviews of Homeopathy. The low quality of evidence does merit caution, but the results do clearly indicate that the existing data do suggest that Homeopathy has an effect greater than placebo. This is the current state of the evidence from clinical trials, and to deny this is to go against the existing data.
Ernst has criticized the results as excluding one of his own trials. Mathie graciously explained on Ernst’s blog the exclusion criteria, but added Ernst’s data to his despite not meeting the criteria, finding the same results. This is published in a pdf separate from Mathie’s original article.
The next, and probably lowest quality of analysis is the NHMRC review done in 2015, commissioned by the Australian government to evaluate the evidence of Homeopathy. This review has a number of methodological problems, which have been summarized expertly by the Homeopathy Research Institute. I will summarize them as follows (and much gratitude to HRO for presenting these points so succinctly):
- NHMRC did the review twice
- The first review, and even it’s existence, was not disclosed to the public
- the NHMRC, upon questioning, responded that the first review was low quality despite being conducted by the individual responsible for developing NHMRC’s guidelines on how to conduct evidence reviews
- FOI requests confirm that a member of NHMRC, Fred Mandelsohn, confirmed the first review to be high quality stating ““I am impressed by the rigor, thoroughness and systematic approach given to this evaluation [….] Overall, a lot of excellent work has gone into this review and the results are presented in a systematic, unbiased and convincing manner.”
- NHMRC stated their results were based on over 1800 studies, when in fact they were based on only 176
- NHMRC has used a method which has never been used in any other review, declaring that only trials of over 150 participants would be accepted, excluding the vast majority of high quality homeopathic trials, which due to lack of funding tend to be smaller, and despite the fact the NHMRC routinely conducts studies of less than 150 participants
- The above rules resulted in exclusion of 171 of 176 studies, leaving only 5 to be used as the basis of the study
- The chair of the second review, Peter Brooks, signed a conflict of interest form declaring himself “free from any association with any organization whose interests are either aligned or opposed to Homeopathy” when he was a member of the anti homeopathy lobby group “friends of science in medicine”
- The NHMRC review included no homeopaths or experts in Homeopathy research, despite the NHMRC guidelines requiring such an inclusion
Rachel Roberts of the HRI presents this set of circumstance expertly in the video below.
The evidence against the NHMRC in frank academic bias and misconduct is so strong the HRI is pursuing a complaint with the relevant Ombudsman in Australia. The initial investigation has found sufficient evidence to warrant a full investigation of NHMRC’s conduct, which is ongoing.
The Skeptical media had a field day with this study, producing a deluge of articles and media misrepresenting the conclusions of the NHMRC review and using Fake News strategies to expand it’s reach to multiple audiences. The subsequent faults and criticisms of this report, and it’s current status of being investigated by the government has gone unreported.
The most recent metaanalysis of Homeopathy was done by Mathie in 2017, and focused on all nonindividualized trials of Homeopathy. This study focused on Randomized, double blinded control trials of nonindividualized Homeopathy, and found 75. 48 trials had high risk of bias, 23 uncertain and 3 had low risk of bias and were listed as reliable. The standard mean deviation was the measure used. 54 trials had extractable data and pooled data shows a SMD of -.33 (CI -.44,-.21) which was statistically significant. Adjusting for publication bias this was adjusted to a still significant -0.16(CI-.46, -.09). Reliable data resulted in an insignificant result of -.18 (CI -.46,+0.09). This result has gone unremarked in the greater skeptical literature on Homeopathy, despite both major negative reviews of Homeopathy (Shang and NHMRC) failing to differentiate these two types of studies.
Skeptical organizations and their sympathizers in the media have utilized the flawed negative studies, presented them without context, and used them as a justification for their already held conclusions that Homeopathy has no effect greater than placebo. This is not just a problem with skeptical organizations, as much of science journalism suffers from similar issues. Skeptical organizations however have embraced Fake News tactics in order to spread their message, having just as much culpability for the modern state of disinformation as other sponsored state actors using those same tactics to advance their political goals.
| Metaanalysis | Results |
| Kleijnen 1991 | All Types Homeopathy. Positive trend regardless of type of Homeopathy. 81 trials positive, 24 no effect. |
| Linde 1997 | All types Homeopathy. 185 trials, 115, included, 89 data extracted Odds ratio of 2.45 (95%CI 2.05-2.93) |
| Ernst 1998 | Individualised Homeopathy, OR of 0 conducted on 5 trials Ernst found to be high quality. |
| Linde 1998 | Individualized Homeopathy. 32 trials. Data from 19 extracted. All trials produced Odds ratio of 1.62 (95% CI 1.17-2.23). Only high quality trials produced no significant trend. |
| Cucherat 2000 | All types of Homeopathy. Unusual method of combining p values together. All trials p< 0.000036. Less than 10% dropouts p<0.084, less than 5% dropouts (higher standards than most trials considered reliable) p<0.08 (nonsignificant) |
| Shang 2005 | All types Homeopathy. 8 trials selected from 21 high quality trials of 110 selected with unusual criteria. OR of 0.88 (0.65-1.19). Result strongly disputed by Statisticians. |
| Mathie 2014 | Individualized Homeopathy. OR of pooled data from all higher quality individualized double blind, randomized controlled trials. Found Odds ratio of 1.53 (1.22-1.91) for all trials pooled, and 1.93 (1.16-3.38) in reliable trials. |
| NHMRC 2015 | Negative results. Used unprecedented methods, did not combine data, and currently under investigation for outcome shopping. |
| Mathie 2017 | Nonindividualized Homeopathy. Very few higher quality trials. All trials with extractable data had SMD of -.33 (-.44, -.21). Adjusted for publication bias -.16 (-.46,-.09). High quality trials had nonsignificant results of -.18 (-.46, +.09). |
Conclusion:
This blog post reviews all the relevant meta-analyses of Homeopathy as a whole preformed. All meta-analyses preformed in at least a somewhat open and rigorous manner have found statistically significant effects suggesting Homeopathy has a greater than placebo effect, or at least a strong trend in that direction. The meta-analyses with questionable methodology, one of which is undergoing government investigation for academic irregularities, found negative results, which have been demonstrated to be a direct result of their exclusion of vast swathes of the Homeopathic clinical trial literature based on arbitrary and unexplained criteria.
The clinical data are flawed. Issues with methodology of randomized controlled clinical trial use in Homeopathy, combined with a lack of research funding have produced a lack of high quality trials and data. However, the data we have point towards Homeopathy having an effect greater than that of placebo.
There can be no argument with this conclusion, aside from new data emerging. Anyone who disputes this is going against the existing set of highest quality evidence on Homeopathy.
The Squamates are one of the very few well proven groups of animals. However, their provings tend to focus on the better known and more prominent venomous snakes, rather than the less prominent snakes, and lizards.
Most notably, the two species of Tuatara, Sphendon punctatus and Sphenodon guntheri, the two remaining species of the ancient Rhynchocephalian lineage, remain unproven. Their addition to the materia medica would be most welcome.
In terms of the Squamata, proving work has been inconsistent, with much needing to be done to complete our understandings of the various groups and families.
Dibamidae have no remedies either potentised or proven at this date, any species would be very useful to the profession. Gekotta have only a single case, with not proven members. Sciniformata have only a single meditative proving. Lacerta are also very poorly represented in the material medica. Any provings would be well received. Particularily interesting would be some species that reproduce parthengonically, such as Zootoca vivipara.
Within the Toxicofera, the Iguania and Anguimorpha have only a few provings each, both needing much more work for an extensive understating to emerge.
The snakes are one of the few over proved groups within the animal kingdom. However the snake provings have focused on the larger families, the Elapidae, Viperidae and to a lesser extent the Booidae. Even within the caenophida the families Homolopsideae, Patreatidae, Vipidae, Lamprophiidae and Xenodermatidae have no provings or potentised specimens whatsoever. The Colubrae have only a few proven remedies. Provings of any of these snake would serve the profession well. However, snake provings in general should be seen a s a low priotiry, as in this rare case, we seem to have enough remedies from this class of animals.
Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Green_Mamba_cropped.JPG
So, a friend has recently asked me to comment on the latest video debunking Homeopathy. Watching the video, I was confronted by a number of logical fallacies, falsehoods, and even outright deceptions. So I decided to catalogue them, one by one.
1. The first problem in the video (about 2 mins into the video) is the exclusive assumption that the only possibly mechanisms for therapeutic efficacy at atomic, or molecular in nature. This is a fundamental assumption of many contemporary ideas about the nature of reality, found in modern materialism and the skeptical movement, but is not founded in the most current understanding of the sciences. Recent sciences have focused on the properties of solutes, the formation of large scale nanostructures in homeopathically prepared solutions. In short, the water and alcohol used to make homeopathic remedies is in no way the same as regular tap or distilled water not prepared this way. A summary research paper on this topic can be found here.
In a fun twist, one of the authors of that paper, a materials scientist, is fond of referring to the no atoms objection to Homeopathy as “high school chemistry”.
2. The idea of the memory of water (3 min). Many objections to the idea of a change in the properties of water having something to do with Homeopathy suggest that all water would contain an imprint of everything it ever came into contact with. This, in addition to being quite intellectually lazy, is experimentally disproven. In the research paper cited above as well as this one, a variety of experimental investigations have determine stable changes in homeopathically prepared solutions, differing from those of unprepared water.
3. The ancient allopathy fallacy (~3:20). Another objection to Homeopathy states that it’s popularity in the 19th century was due to the fact that Homeopathy was, at the least, not harmful, whereas the allopathic ( conventional) treatments of the time actively harmed the patients. This line of thinking ignored the statistics collected by Homeopaths of their work, showing mortality rates lower than would be expected from expectant treatment, and in some cases lower than those achieved with modern medicine and nursing care in the modern era. Take, for example, Pneumonia. Community acquired pneumonia has, untreated, a mortality rate of approximately 30% in the elderly, and 18% in individuals over 12 years old with competent immune systems (Kiple KF (ed.). The Cambridge World History of Human Disease. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 938-939.). Conventional treatment of allopathic medicine shows mortality rates ( in the present day) of about 13.7%. This rate has stayed remarkably stable historically, unlike many other infectious diseases, which wax and wane in terms of mortality. If Homeopathy was truly only not harmful, but lacked any healing power, the statistics from this time should show similar mortality rates. 
In fact they do not. Homeopathy shows consistently lower mortality rates. I have reproduced screenshot from the Homeopathic book “The logic of figures” a book compiling 19th century Homeopathic statistics. In it, a mortality rate of 5.7% of 1098 patients is reported. As well a figure from American Homeopathic hospitals ( yes, such things existed once) reported a mortality rate of 2.8% on 11 526 patients (Fiske RE. A survey of the statistics of the homeopathic treatment of lobar pneumonia. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1928; 21: 886-993.). Definitely too large to be chance, and too low to be due to non harming the patient.
4. The lifestyle objection (3:40) posits that Homeopathy has prescribed very strict lifestyle changes, which benefited the patients, and reduced the course and severity of their disease apart from the effect of Homeopathic medicines. This ignores the effect of Homeopathy on infectious disease, sampled above, in which Homeopathy acts immediately in acute situations, without the time for lifestyle changes to take effect. It also fails to explain why similar lifestyle changes prescribed by conventional physicians, with the addition of presumably efficacious medicines, failed to have an even greater effect than the lifestyle changes of Homeopaths, prescribed with presumed placebos. If lifestyle is all that is efficacious about this therapy, results such as those listed above with pneumonia should be available to any practitioner, even in the modern era, with appropriate lifestyle recommendations.
5. The modern medicine idea (4:20). The idea that western society is the longest living and healthiest society that has ever existed on the planet, and that this is exclusively due to modern western medical care, is again, categorically false. Modern Western societies life expectations are dropping (particularly in the United States). A number of historical societies enjoyed extremely long lifespans, with some having a longer life expectancy than the modern west, with no access to modern medical care. Buettner, the author of a book on the subject, reports these factors as being critical in creating these blue zones.
- family engagement
- moderate physical exercise
- purpose and meaning in life
- stress reduction
- moderate calorie diet
- largely plant derived diet
- moderate alcohol intake
- Spirituality
- active social life
I would add, that the vast majority of the increased lifespan is the work of improved sanitation and nutritional status, as well as other public health measures. A recent study described this effect, with large numbers of the public misattributing the increase in lifespan to medical care, rather than public health.
5. The idea Homeopathy has no effect beyond placebo (4:45). This stament is again categorically false. Homeopathy has been analyzed in about 8 metanalyses. Of these 6 were positive. Two were negative. Both of these were questionable methodologically and so deserve greater exploration.
The most recent and famous one, is the NHMRC report, which was recently made quite famous on the skeptical media for it’s proclamation of Homeopathy’s inability to be statistically distinguished from placebo. This conclusion however was dependent on a number of assumptions and rules added to the review process, used nowhere else in the research literature, and without justification by the authors. The authors as well made a number of methodological failures, such as inability to understand certain research designs, and failure to distinguish individualized and non individualized methodologies. As well, there was an earlier report, currently under investigation by the Ombudsman for the NHMRC, which was shelved and replaced by the current report. There is suspicion the first report was favorable to homeopathy, and the organization was outcome shopping, looking for the results they wanted and adapting their methodology to suit. A full analysis of the NHMRC reports many flaws is in the video below.
The second negative metanalysis was the 2005 Shang analysis. The absolutely massive flaws inherent to it have been discussed elsewhere on my blog, but I will give here the excellent discussion of it by the Homeopathic research institute.
6. The placebo effect (5:20). This effect has recently become something of a deus ex machina for those who debunk systems of medicine not embraced by the public health system. In short, yes it is very real. However, Homeopathy has been repeatedly demonstrated to have effects beyond that of the placebo effect, including in the highest quality trials available on the subject, as analyzed by Mathie in 2014. You can watch Mathie’s presentation on his paper below. This argument ignores the available evidence, and actually goes against it.
7. The Big Sugar argument (~6:00). The argument is that Homeopathy is a 17 billion dollar industry, engages in lobbying and thus is somehow equivalent to the pharmaceutical industry. Firstly, lets assume the 17 billion dollar argument is correct. I frankly don’t know.
The global annual revenue for pharmaceutical sales is approximately 1.1 trillion annually. This is a truly staggering amount of money, and has given rise to the pharmaceutical industry’s well known activities in lobbying, research corruption and medical education. Homeopathy in the figure given in this video (and again, I have no idea what the accuracy of this figure is) total revenues constitute approximately 1.54% of this total.
To suggest that Homeopathy is a vast and profitable business is quite simply false. While one firm (Boiron) has achieved some size, with 614 million euros in total revenue in 2016, this pales in comparison with any of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies, each of which reports tens of billions of revenue in 2016. And remember, Boiron is the leader, a very large part of the homeopathic market is dominated by smaller pharmacies operating on small budgets, making specialty products and orders with relatively low incomes and profit margins. It is a labor of love for dedicated pharmacists, not a vastly lucrative field.
To compare the efforts at systematic corruption of the Homeopathic and pharmaceutical industries is incredibly disingenuous.
8.The Homeopathy harms by omission argument. This argument has been around since Homeopathy’s earliest days, in which it was argued that Homeopathic therapeutics harmed individuals from the delay of applications of more effective therapeutics, such as bloodletting and heavy metals. This argument is based on the assumption of Homeopathy consisting solely of a placebo effect, something we have seen above, is not true, both based on clinical trials, and on our discussion of serious infectious disease like pneumonia, above.
Secondly, individuals’ consumption of holistic or alternative medicine are not correlated to less educational status, an propensity towards being deceived, or other factors. Individuals choosing holistic care tend to have higher incomes, higher educational attainments, and in my experience, higher expectations of conventional care than it is able to provide, even at the best of times. Homeopathy has traditionally be the medicine of the upper classes, and still is to a large extent in Britain. It has traditionally been favored by individuals with higher educations, and the expectation that medicine should actually cure them. Dana Ullman wrote an entire book on this subject, detailing the many famous individuals who chose Homeopathy, and why they did so. Sue Young also has a comprehensive historical blog, showing a number of leading figures, presidents, suffragettes, scientists, all individuals of discrimination and worth, who chose Homeopathy for themselves.
9. The compassion argument (6:37). A key argument against Homeopathy and it’s efficacy is the argument that our longer consultations and personal empathy fill the needs of individuals in an impersonal and sterile health systems. This is a very poor opinion of medical practitioners. I may be extremely critical of the systematic legal oppression against Homeopathy and Naturopathic medicine instituted by the current medical system, but I would not accuse medical staff of anything but the highest regard, empathy and care for their patients in the vast majority of circumstances. Furthermore, I myself have a very busy practice, with appointments running often at 10-15 minutes. Not that much long than a conventional MD’s visit length. I get stressed and overwhelmed, and can sometimes fail to connect to patients. Yet, my treatments still work, despite that failing due to economic demands.
To suggest that Homeopaths and Naturopathic doctors get better results purely to to empathy is a profound insult to the dedicated medical staff throughout the world. We get better results because of our therapies and our work in harmony with the bodies’ inherent self healing mechanisms, instead of against them, as in allopathic care.
This video piles falsehood upon falsehood, in an, admittedly, quite visually lovely piece, but one of no serious intellectual value, or any real accuracy.
Hi Everyone. I just wrote a minor editorial for The Nat Path. Here is it reproduced in full! You can access the article here.
I hope you enjoy!
Recently a post declaring that Homeopathy had been made Illegal by the FDA has been circulating on social media. Written by Dr. Mercola, the article headline “All Homeopathic Products Now Illegal?” and details recent changes being circulated by the FDA for comment. But in order to understand the changes, we must understand Homeopathic regulation in the United States.
Unlike in most countries, Homeopathics in the United States are regulated as Drugs by the FDA. This was accomplished by Royal Copeland, scion of a long line of Homeopaths, who was the Senator from New York from 1923-38. He was instrumental in the authorship of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic act, making specific provisions for the regulation of Homeopathic remedies, and making official the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS), begun in 1897 by the American Institute of Homeopathy. Since then, Homeopathic remedies and pharmacies have been federally regulated, in their own separate legal category.
Approval of Homeopathic drugs is now dependent on the creation of a monograph and it’s inclusion in the HPCUS. The HCPUS requires the efficacy of the remedy to be established through either clinical verification or through two double blinded trials. Substances in use prior to 1962 are also accepted, grandfathered into the current regulatory process. This process is specifically reflective of the type of knowledge generation process used in Homeopathic therapy. It is uniquely well suited among regulatory regimes to allow for approval of new remedies, and thier safe production.This process protects the public also against adulteration and misbranding of regulated products.
This approval is subject to the FDA’s nonprescription drug review, but it has not generally made this an issue.
This regime was designed for the approval of single Homeopathic remedies. These remedies generally make no health claims, being known through homeopathic clinical data, provings, and texts designed to impart this knowledge to both health practitioners and laypeople. Recently a large number of companies have began marketing complex homeopathics, products made from multiple remedies, and making health claims for them, as well as specifically marketing them to the public.
It is this making of claims and marketing that the FDA is taking issue with. as the actual press release from the FDA shows “In recent years, we’ve seen a large uptick in products labeled as homeopathic that are being marketed for a wide array of diseases and conditions, from the common cold to cancer. In many cases, people may be placing their trust and money in therapies that may bring little to no benefit in combating serious ailments, or worse – that may cause significant and even irreparable harm because the products are poorly manufactured, or contain active ingredients that aren’t adequately tested or disclosed to patients”. The FDA has stated it’s own priorities in enforcement:
- products with reported safety concerns;
- products that contain or claim to contain ingredients associated with potentially significant safety concerns;
- products for routes of administration other than oral and topical;
- products intended to be used for the prevention or treatment of serious and/or life-threatening diseases and conditions;
- products for vulnerable populations; and
- products that do not meet standards of quality, strength or purity as required under the law.
These emphases have been dictated by a few recent events and trends. A recent incident was reported in several media outlets of seizures in infants using several varieties of over the counter teething gels. These gels all contained belladonna at homeopathic ultradilutions, which should not have caused these symptoms. Some contamination of these products may have occurred, but in any case, they were recalled and similar incidents have yet to be recur. Another factor playing into this increased attention is the increasing popularity of Homeoprophylaxis. Homeoprophylaxis, the practice of using Homeopathic remedies to reduce susceptibility and severity of diseases. With increased emphasis on enforcement of vaccine mandates, options perceived as offering alternatives to vaccine mandates are coming under increased scrutiny. This has led to the suggestion the FDA may further restrict access to nosodes. Already restricted to people trained in Homeopathy by most pharmacies, the possibility remains that the FDA make further restrict these remedies.
Homeopathy is a unique system of medicine, with its own unique philosophy, treatment principles, technologies, and ideas about health and illness. The FDA has regulated the manufacture of single Homeopathics well for nearly a century. However, the proliferation of complex remedies and remedies marketed directly to the public under that legal framework raises warranted concerns whether the public is being adequately protected under the current legislation. It is entirely reasonable to demand a high standard of evidence for products making health claims, and indeed the FTC was not unjustified in taking a more stringent approach towards enforcing standards on health claims.
However, applying the same standards to Homeopathics as applies towards the approval of new pharmaceutical drugs is ludicrous. Homeopathy is incredibly safe, with events such as the teething gel incident incredibly rare. By it’s very nature it is a non toxic therapy, one capable of healing patients in desperate circumstances no other branch of medicine can help. Homeopathy, especially the manufacture of single remedies, is non proprietary. Any pharmacy can make any remedy merely by finding a sample of the original material. Homeopathic pharmacy has slim margins, and does not generate the tens of billions of profit allopathic pharmacy does. Enforcing identical standards with the approval of allopathic drugs would be both financially impossible, and extremely difficult, given the research issues inherent to Homeopathy. Furthermore, in an effort to restrict the usage of Homeoprophylaxis, restricting nosodes would deprive Americans of an extremely useful group of medicines, with enormous uses outside of Homeoprophylaxis.
The FDA does have a legitimate purpose to regulate the manufacture and the advertising of medicinal substances. In doing so, it must however ensure Homeopathy is regulated in an appropriate way. The regulation of health claims on homeopathic products marketed directly to the public, as well as their safety, may require changes to current legislation, and perhaps regulating these products in a framework similar to the regulation of dietary supplements. But the current system of regulation of single homeopathic remedies is entirely appropriate.
I would urge any Americans concerned about this process to both contact thier elected federal representative, and to participate in the FDA comment process, open to the public. Describe your experiences with Homeopathy, how it’s availability has been of great help to either your patients health, or your own, and urge them towards appropriate regulation for this incredibly safe therapy.
Hello Everyone.
I just wanted to let everyone know I wish you all a merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and to express how privileged and grateful I am to have you guys in my life as patients.
I hope we together have the best New Year, full of new discoveries, restored health for us all, and a universe transformed by our effort!
Much love!
Hi Everyone!
I just published the latest volume of the Table of Animals today! This is part Three, focusing on the Lophotrochozoa. This is a group of invertebrate animals that contains the worms (Annelids), Brachiopods, Platyhelminthes and Bryozoa. Each of these groups has never been explored systematizally within Homeopathy to date, and I am excited to bring this
The Mollusks are also included in the Lophotrochozoa. However the Homeopathic literature on the Mollusks is far more developed, requiring it’s own volume.
This work follows on my other works, The Table of Animals, and the Porifera, Cnidaria and Ctenophora. However, based on feedback I included an introduction to the Table of Animals as a whole in the book.
There will be a paperback version released, combining this volume with the future volume on Mollusks, released sometime next year. I am hopeful to release the ebook on mollusks when editing is done, sometime in January or February.
I look forward to hearing what you all think of it!
Take Care, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
Turtles are generally a very poorly proven group of vertebrates. We have only 5 proven members of this species, all from the Cryptodira. Any Members of the Pleurodira would be excellent candidates for proving. 
Some interesting candidates would be the African helmeted turtle (Pelomedusa subrufa) a species which has been observed engaging in mutuallist cleansing of parasites on warthogs and rhinoceros[i] shown here[ii] . Also interesting would be the mata mata turtle (Chelus fimbriata), with it’s exquisite body shape, used to camouflage itself amoung rocks and streams in South America.
In terms of the cryptodira, a multitude of fascinating species are available. Two separate, but very similar, species of giant Tortoises are extant, the Galapagos giant tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra) and the Aldabra giant tortoise (Aldabrachchelys gigantea). Both can be over 1m long, and upto 250 kg. Geographic isolation on islands. Both of these species are remarkably long lived, with some individual Aldabra giant Tortoises being recorded as living up 184 years.
Other intriguing species for proving would be the pig nosed turtle (Carettochelys insculpta) the only freshwater turtle with flippers instead of legs, and with a remarkle nose resembling that of a pig. Also interesting would be the eastern long necked turtle (Chelodina longicolis) which is remarkable for it’s long, almost snake like neck and it’s ability to secrete a foul smelling substance upto three feet when threatened.
[i] LightMatter. Online Image accessed November 26th 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galapagos_dominance_display.jpg
[i] Owen, J. Turtles groom warthog in never-before-seen behavior. Oct 8 2015. National Geograhic. Online document accessed November 26th 2017. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151008-turtles-warthogs-africa-animals-science/
[ii] Photo by Greg Hume. Accessed November 26th 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Helmeted_turtle_25.JPG
Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Helmeted_turtle_25.JPG Photo by Greg Hume.