Whether it’s the benefits of talk therapy or the pills and tonics they provide, homeopaths in San Francisco are helping people turn their lives around.

Whether it’s the benefits of talk therapy or the pills and tonics they provide, homeopaths in San Francisco are helping people turn their lives around. •

When you walk into the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, a space set up to help some of San Francisco’s 7,500 homeless people maintain their health and well-being, you are struck first by the colors: bright blue lockers, yellow and aqua walls, everything painted in toy-box hues. Men and women gather around plastic tables, joking, eating, waiting for their clothes to dry in the washing machines. The center often holds support groups and social events for their clients, including LGBT Saturdays and a weekly Ladies’ Night.

You sign in at a desk staffed by a cheerful, pleasant man. Your name goes on the second or third page; the space was designed to serve a few dozen people a day and instead serves hundreds. They form a line down the block before the doors even open. It’s two blocks from the heart of the Mission’s rapid gentrification, but worlds away. “As homeopaths,” she tells me, “we are part of the cure. We listen like nobody else listens.”

The Resource Center also offers mental health services to its clients, many of whom are veterans, abuse survivors, and addicts. A number suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, a psychological response to violence and other trauma that leads to flashbacks, nightmares, difficulty functioning, and, too often, suicide.

Turn left and go up the stairs. Here you have a choice: straight will take you through a little nest of cubicles, walls dotted with family photos, and into the clinic, which is orderly and clean. It looks like a small neighborhood clinic anywhere in America: a tidy waiting area with a young receptionist behind a big desk, leading off to small, sterile exam rooms.

There, the neighborhood’s homeless people can access free preventative care, acute services like infection or fever treatment, and disease testing—people living on the street are 11 times more likely to suffer from tuberculosis, and between a third and a half of all those with HIV in the United States are either homeless or are at risk of losing their housing.

But if you turn left instead, you will enter one of two small, messy offices that, once a week, play host to a clinic run by the Homeopathy Institute of the Pacific, or HIP.

HIP is run by Wanda Smith-Schick, an intense, warm woman with hair that fans out from beneath a green headband like a cartoon sun. She is beautiful. When I visited the center she shook my hand, and I was struck with the feeling that this is a woman who gets shit done. “As homeopaths,” she tells me, “we are part of the cure. We listen like nobody else listens.”

The HIP clinic runs every Tuesday morning, staffed by three volunteers who each have their own private practices. Most of its patients are referred by the medical clinic or the mental health staff at Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, usually after the patients have expressed concern over seeing doctors and taking medication. HIP also operates two separate non-profit clinics, one elsewhere in San Francisco and one in Redwood City, California, specifically to treat veterans with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries.

“This room, I can’t see vets in. There are no windows, it’s like they’re trapped in a box,” Smith-Schick says, waving her hand around the small turquoise office. HIP started the veterans program because so many of the people they saw in the Mission were vets with PTSD. Those clinics mostly treat low-income vets, and occasionally their family members.

I ask her to tell me a story about someone she’d helped at the Resource Center. For nausea, a homeopath might give a highly diluted amount of a treatment that causes nausea, on the principle that this will trigger the body to “correct the imbalance.”

“I had a patient with a history of violence. If someone blew their nose at him, he’d go into a rage,” she says. “When I treated him, things started to click back into balance. Months later, he got attacked by two guys at knife-point. He went back to where he was staying, got a knife, said he would get revenge. He tracked them down, found them—and then nothing. He told me, ‘I don’t know what happened, but I saw they were just kids. I don’t know what you’ve been giving me, but that wasn’t me.’”

“He’d always say, ‘Are you a witch?’ I’d say, nope, it’s a science.”

Homeopathy is not, in fact, science. It’s generally considered an alternative medicine, regulated by the FDA but not approved as a treatment. The core belief is “like treats like”; the patient is given a small dose of something that causes a reaction similar to the illness at hand. So for nausea, a homeopath might give a highly diluted amount of a treatment that causes nausea, on the principle that this will trigger the body to “correct the imbalance.”

Homeopaths call their work a holistic therapy, treating the whole person—mind, body, and soul. They spend time talking to their patients, finding out what hurts and what they’ve been through. Then they prescribe one of a few thousand “remedies,” generally in the form of a tablet. The pills contain mostly sugar and filler. The amount of active ingredient used in homeopathic treatments is vanishingly small.

In fact, in modern homeopathy the remedies are diluted to the point where they are unlikely to have a clinical effect. Often, the active ingredients are so diluted it would require absurd numbers of pills, statistically, to get even one molecule of treatment—in some cases, more tablets than there are molecules in the universe. Justifications from homeopaths vary, but usually focus on the idea that the tablets (or water, when the remedies are distributed as a liquid) in some way “remember” the active ingredients on a molecular level.

Many studies have shown that homeopathic remedies are no better than placebo. The studies that support homeopathy are often, as doctor and writer Ben Goldacre has pointed out repeatedly, plagued with scientific problems—for instance, patients may know that they’re getting a placebo drug, which taints the results. Goldacre is not alone in criticizing homeopathy. Practitioners are frequently accused of taking advantage of the gullible and desperate, and some people have become very sick and even died because they rejected modern medicine in favor of homeopathy. Can sugar pills and empathy treat a deadly mental illness in an under-served population? And if they can—and it certainly looks like they can—does it matter that the pills aren’t really medicine?

Whatever success homeopathy has is probably due to the placebo effect. But the placebo effect is a genuinely amazing phenomenon. Scientists have discovered it can be helpful in treating chronic pain, gastroenterisis, and symptoms of Parkinson’s and depression. There’s value in thinking holistically: The mind has immense power over the body. That’s why doctors around the world are navigating the tricky moral waters of informed consent to utilize placebos in an ethical way. And though homeopathic remedies themselves may not have any scientific validity, here in the Mission they’re helping people turn their lives around.

Can sugar pills and empathy treat a deadly mental illness in an under-served population? And if they can—and it certainly looks like they can—does it matter that the pills aren’t really medicine?

“There’s tons of research that just contact alone is helpful for people. There’s a lot of spontaneous recovery among psychiatric patients—a lot of the time they feel much better after their first meeting,” says Jack Tsai, a Yale researcher who studies PTSD in homeless veterans. “If they’re getting benefits from homeopathy, it’s because of that hour of talking.”

I asked Bernardo Merizalde, a medical doctor and professor of psychiatry at Thomas Jefferson University, about homeopathy, which he uses on most of the patients in his private psychology practice. “I think homeopathic medicine is a very good, inexpensive treatment modality to help treat people with PTSD. I have used it in my practice with very good results, in combination with psychological therapies,” he emailed.

This combination is important. HIP doesn’t recommend homeopathic treatment as a replacement for therapy, or even a replacement for standard medication. The Institute works with medical professionals, including at the clinic in the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center. “I don’t ever tell anyone to go off their meds. I tell them to work with me and the doctor, and see their doctor regularly,” Smith-Schick says. “As long as we’re working together, it’s complementary.”

She also stresses that she’s not a trained therapist, and often convinces her patients to see one of the therapists on staff at the Resource Center.

The popularity of complementary medicine, Tsai says, is an indication that established medical practice isn’t cutting it with these patients. “If there’s been a rise in homeopathy, I think it actually points out the failure of the science community to come up with effective treatments,” Tsai says. “There’s a lot of vets turned off by medication, because of the side effects of antidepressants—impotence, daytime sleepiness, dry mouth. They may turn to homeopathy due to the failure of other treatments. It shows they’re looking for something, but there’s a lack of alternative treatments that are effective.”

Smith-Schick agrees. “Vets are coming to me because they don’t want to take drugs. We hear the effects [of going untreated]—more vets have killed themselves than have died on the front lines.”

The most effective treatments for PTSD aren’t drugs at all. They consist of different forms of forcing a patient to relive their trauma, and conditioning them to have a healthier response than full-body shakes and flashbacks. When patients who come in for homeopathic treatment spend an hour telling Smith-Schick about their trauma, it may have similar benefits to this type of therapy. And, when followed by pills and a promise they’ll heal, that might be exactly what HIP’s patients need.

There aren’t any records for how many veterans nationwide seek homeopathic remedies for PTSD, but HIP sees a few dozen a month. Smith-Schick showed me a video testimonial from one of her patients at the veteran’s clinic. He describes a dramatic change over six weeks, during which he took two doses of a remedy.

“I can honestly say I can’t recognize myself compared to the person I was when I came. I was suicidal, I was filled with rage,” the man in the video says.“I feel like, for the first time in my life, that I’m truly open to what God has offered me from the beginning, but you know, because of my circumstances, I’ve been distracted. I would suggest anyone who has any kind of traumatic history to fully take advantage of this wonderful, beneficial resource of homeopathy. And the compassionate listening skills of Wanda.”

Smith-Schick has always been a listener. “When I was in college, strangers on the street would come up to me and tell me their life stories. I must have a sign on my head that says, ‘Tell me more,’” she says. She came to homeopathy after working in an emergency room, and feeling uncomfortable seeing patients boomerang to the hospital with complications from their medication. Now, she finds her work with HIP to be the most rewarding part of her job. Placebo Week

The Power of Placebos

Getting Drunk on Expectations

Sugar Pills and Empathy: A Sweeter Cure

Little Lies Push an Athlete’s Limits

“I say, I have to work my private practice around the clinic hours. My friends say, what’s wrong with you? It should be the other way around. But I just don’t think that way. If someone needs help, they should get it,” Smith-Schick says.

Christina Garelli, another volunteer, was an architect before she was a homeopath. When her daughter was diagnosed with a genetic condition that caused a great deal of pain, doctors failed to treat it. Homeopathy, though, worked. So Garelli dropped everything to become a homeopath herself. Johanna Abate, the third homeopath at the clinic, attended a four-year program at the Institute of Classical Homeopathy, which as far as I can tell runs basically like a medical school, with several years of book training backed up by time spent in their free clinic.

Smith-Schick introduced me to Ricardo Newball, the services manager for the Resource Center. With a shaved head and hoop earrings, he looks like a Hispanic Mr. Clean with a short beard. Behind his desk is a cork-board with photographs—before and after snapshots of clients who have gotten their lives together, a picture of Newball 100 pounds heavier than he is now. A shrine to hope, perhaps.

When I ask him about Smith-Schick, Newball exclaims, “Wanda! The one and only!” He describes her ability to spot emotional needs as almost super-human. “Wanda’s style is, love unconditionally,” he says. “But she’s also tough.” Initially he didn’t care enough about homeopathy to know if he believed or not. But after weeks of hearing him complain about his aching back, Wanda demanded he come in and take a remedy. It worked.

Now he goes to Wanda for pain, insomnia, and the stress of working an emotionally and physically exhausting job. “I make sure everything is ready so operations can run smoothly. When the director’s not here, I take over, and when the janitor’s not here I clean,” he says.

Having his fingers in everything means he sees the best and worst. Many days he sees both—he might get somebody he’s known for years homed in the morning, and then hours later get a call that another long-time client has died on the street. It takes its toll. Many of the other staff members go to the homeopaths to help with sleep problems and stress.

Smith-Schick, too, feels the strain of so much tragedy. “I hear horrifying stories. Every time I tell myself, now I’ve heard it all, there’s more. I think, oh my God, all these people are suffering,” she says. “It takes practice to detach and listen objectively. In training they say, leave yourself at the door. If you don’t, it’s more how you feel about what they’re telling you.”

I ask Smith-Schick what she’d say to those suggesting homeopathy is really an example of the placebo effect. “All I know is people who come to the clinic get better,” she says. “People get better, and some people leave and have peace.”

This post originally appeared on Medium as “A Sweeter Pill” and is republished here with the author’s permission.

Homeoprophylaxis – Can you believe it? © Elena Cecchetto

AUDIENCE: Myself, my professors, other students, other homeopaths, other interested parties. PURPOSE: To critically challenge the epistemology of an element of Homeopathic Practice; specifically the idea that Homeopathy can be successful in preventing disease amongst a population for epidemic or pandemic disease outbreaks.

ABSTRACT:

I have written this essay to deconstruct an aspect of my clinical practice. There is controversy around the use of homeoprophylaxis in preventing disease during epidemics and pandemics. I wanted to see if there was research that could demonstrate the ability to use homeopathy in epidemics/pandemics. If so, what type of research and can it be recognized as valid. If it is not, why not? I explored and gathered information, interviews with practitioners, charts, essays, population studies and Random Controlled Trials. These helped to see the various levels of ability for homeopathic remedies to be used to prevent infectious diseases in a laboratory and in actual contemporary populations. However, these studies are in contrast within the prevailing paradigm to do with how homeopathic remedies work. Since there is an underlying disbelief in the idea that highly diluted substances could work, there is a difficulty in accepting the studies that demonstrate success for homeopathic remedies.

Introduction:

Can homeopathy help for prevention of disease in epidemics or pandemics? I have been using Dr. Isaac Golden’s (2007) homeoprophylaxis (HP) program for children in my homeopathic clinical practice for 7 years. However, when clients and others ask for the scientific evidence, my reference to historical accounts of the use of homeopathy during actual epidemics doesn’t always seem to satisfy them. As I am questioning what is science and what is knowledge, I am also unsure. The purpose of this essay is to identify and come to an understanding of the idea behind using homeopathy for the prevention of illness in epidemic or pandemic diseases and addressing whether there is valid demonstration of the successful use of homeopathy for epidemics/pandemic diseases. Ranging from historical references, Random Control Trials (RCTs) and population studies, and provings; are these sufficient to demonstrate the premise that homeopathic treatment can be used to have an impact on infectious diseases? Are there factors limiting the research or use of the information generated?

Important aspects of this essay defined:

According to Webster’s online dictionary (2013), Epidemics and pandemics refer to an outbreak of an infections disease where many people are affected in a wide geographic area. A pandemic is the same except it is affecting a larger geographic area that can occur beyond borders of one region or even country. The founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann explains in the Organon (1996), that homeopathy is most simply defined as a medical art relying on two main principles being the law of minimum dose and the law of similars. Homeoprophylaxis is the use of homeopathic remedies to prevent ahead of time a specific disease. A homeopathic remedy proving is a collection of observed and recorded signs and symptoms conducted according to the instructions outlined in Hahnemann’s (1996) Organon. The material medica is the resource where these provings and other useful sources are compiled for organized reference of each remedy’s therapeutic uses.

How did the use of homeopathy for epidemics start?

Dr. Samuel Hahnemann and homeopaths inspired by him and his writings in the Organon have seemed to make good use of homeopathic treatment to help people who have succumbed to infectious diseases or to help prevent them from succumbing to them. It was Hahnemann’s discriminating observation in 1789 that began the exploration of prevention of disease with homeopathic remedies. In his Lesser Writings (1852), he first described his experience preventing Scarlet Fever by giving them all doses of Belladonna in addition to the members of the family who had contracted it. Using the principles of homeopathic medicine combined with knowledge of homeopathic remedies from provings or other material medica resources has granted the use remedies homeoprophylactically.

Physician’s records:

Historical references of hospital reports are one way a direct comparison can be made between homeopathy and non-homeopathic treatment. In the chart below compiled by Navab (2012), numbers of patient deaths in hospitals are compared to allopathic numbers of deaths. In these reports the rate of success for homeopaths in specific hospitals is shown as a mortality rate of less than 10% for the treatment of scarlet fever, cholera, typhus fever, pneumonia, yellow fever and Spanish influenza. The mortality rates for the conventional doctors of the time (termed allopaths) are over 10% for each of these diseases. The treatments the allopaths had for the 1918 flu were limited to aspirin or acetylsalicylic acid according to Billings (1997) compared to what is available now. It is also very plausible that the results in charts are simply lower for allopaths because the allopathic medicines used between 1798 and 1918 were not as sophisticated as the ones in the present.

Year Location Disease Treatment by Homeopathy Treatment by Allopathy Treatment with No Medicine 1799 Königslütter, Germany Scarlet Fever Mortality <5% 1830 ~ ‘31* Russia Cholera Mortality 11 %Reported by Imperial Council & Foreign Ministry of Russia. Mortality 63 %Reported by Imperial Council & Foreign Ministry of Russia. Not recorded. 1830 ~ 1832 Vienna, Prague, Hungary and Moravia Cholera Mortality 7 %Reported by Dr. Kath, appointed by King of Bavaria. Mortality 31 %Reported by Dr. Kath, appointed by King of Bavaria. Not recorded. 1836** Vienna Cholera Mortality 33 %Lead Homeopath in charge was Dr. Fleischmann Mortality 66 % 1847 Ireland Typhus fever Mortality 2 %Lead Homeopath in charge was Dr. Joseph Kidd Mortality 13 %Lead Allopath in charge was Dr. Abraham Tuckey Not recorded. 1847 England Typhus fever Mortality 2 % Mortality 13 % Mortality 10 % 1848 Edinburgh, Scotland Cholera Mortality 24 %Reported by Edinburgh Dispensary. Mortality 68 %Reported by Edinburgh Dispensary. Not recorded. mid 1800’s Austria Pneumonia Mortality 5 %Lead Homeopath in charge was Dr. Fleischmann Mortality 20 %Lead Allopath in charge was Dr. Dietl Not recorded. 1853 ~ 1855 South of America Yellow fever Mortality 5.4 %Lead Homeopaths in charge were Dr. F. Davis and Dr. W. Holconibe Not Available. Not recorded. 1854 London, England Cholera Mortality 16.4 %Reported by Royal College of Physicians. Mortality 59.2 %Reported by Royal College of Physicians. Not recorded. 1878 New Orleans, USA Yellow fever Mortality 5.6 %Special Commission reported the statistics. Mortality 17 %Special Commission reported the statistics. Not recorded. 1918*** Pittsburgh, USA Spanish Influenza Mortality 1.05 %Reported by Dean, Pittsburgh Hospital Mortality 30 %Reported by Dean, Pittsburgh Hospital Not recorded.

In the 1800’s and early 1900’s when homeopaths were working as physicians within the medical system of society of the day, they had access to a statistically significant number of patients. Because these reports were created centuries ago, the information is open to interpretation. Reading the information in the chart above, different people will have different perspectives on the information presented depending on a person’s prior knowledge, beliefs and filters that can affect the conclusions (Fuller, 2003). A person educated in homeopathy (presumable already believing that homeopathy works) might ask ‘what remedies did they use?’ while a person not knowing homeopathy might simply ask the question ‘how’.

The homeopathic physicians had the same or similar access to clinical surroundings and tools available to the allopathic physicians. During the 1918 Influenza in California, Elsa Engle was a nurse practitioner using homeopathic remedies under instruction from Dr. Engle. As Malthouse (2010) wrote from an interview that was conducted by Frances Kalfus in 1992, the then 97 year old Elsa Engle explains their success at Hahnemann Hospital; “They all had about the same symptoms. You didn't have to do anything else but give them a bottle of Gelsemium, followed with a bottle of Eupatorium perfoliatum... In five days practically all of them were well”. Gelsemium and Eupatorium perfoliatum are homeopathic remedies that are still commonly used for influenza. The CBC report (Puri, 2009) explained to viewers during the many homeopathic clients were turning to the remedy Gelsemium that was “used extensively during the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918” for the H1N1 flu. However, with information or data and its style of presentation, each person will come to a different conclusion depending on prior experiences and beliefs. In order for something like homeopathy, because it might be in contrast with a strong belief, even the highest quality of research won’t suffice to change that belief despite what a study shows. Rutten (2008) describes the problem that “Prior beliefs are updated in the Bayesian process, but the first prior belief has a special position. This first prior belief is very strong, we need to consider how strong and why. It is in fact paradigmatic and might not be susceptible to Bayes’ theorum”. Perhaps only a strong personal experience (seeing is believing) might be the only thing that can change a strong prior belief.

RCTs Japanese Encephalitis (JE):

Looking at two Random Control Trials (RCTs) in a clinical laboratory where studies were done with the infectious disease Japanese Encephalitis (JE) and doses of the homeopathic remedy, Belladonna. The authors Bandyopadhyay et al. (2010 and 2011) found statistically significant success showing that Belladonna is effective in preventing disease indicators. This is a chart from Bandyopadhyay et al. (2010) showing decreased viral infection found in the Choriallontoic Membrane (CAM) of unhatched chicks dosed with Belladonna in the four different potencies of 3, 6, 30 and 200;

For the RCT done on suckling mice by Bandyopadhyay et al. (2011), average survival rates of the infected suckling mice treated with Belladonna 200C daily for 14 days had almost double the survival rate than those not treated with Belladonna 200C. 47% survival rate for untreated mice versus 79.24% and 80.60% for the Belladonna treated mice for 7 and 14 days. In the discussion of this successful study, the authors Bandyopadhyay et al. (2011) state that homeopathic practitioners have historically been using the homeopathic remedy Belladonna for the prevention of JE without any RCT experimental proof of how it works and therefore there is further need to test how it is that the homeopathic remedy Belladonna has showed an ability to prevent JE. This study has successfully shown a specific outcome. However, the question of the properties of Belladonna that made it work is what the authors chose to recommend as required further study.

Population Studies: Swine Flu in India:

In India 2009 a Swine Flu patient study involving 23 Homeopaths and 1146 patients was conducted by Mathie et al. (2013) which took a set of previous agreed upon (by the Centre for Clinical Research of Homeopathy (CCRH)) group of symptoms defining Swine Flu by Homeopaths working in government approved health centres in India. The Homeopaths agreed to record their results in a formatted excel chart between October, 2009 and February, 2010. The most frequently prescribed remedy that helped the patients as the primary care for the Swine Flu was Arsenicum album; the very same remedy that the CCRH had identified as the as a prophylactic Genus Epidemicus for this pandemic. Results like this can tempt the enthusiast to proclaim at this as proof that homeopathy can be used in epidemics.

However, the overarching challenge in demonstrating the proof that homeopathy can be successful for epidemics and pandemics through research and information is that it contrasts the current prevailing paradigm. To express this idea Rutten (2008) quotes Vandenbroucke (2001) “Accepting that infinite dilutions work would subvert more than conventional medicine; it wrecks a whole edifice of chemistry and physics”. With this in mind, the work shown in this study could present to different conclusions to people with different prior beliefs. If accepting the validity of homeopathic remedies is not a possibility within the belief system than accepting this study as successfully demonstrating that homeopathy can help in epidemics is also not a possibility.

Leptospirosis in Cuba:

A study by Bracho et al. (2009) was conducted with 2.3 million people in Cuba. The population above 1 year of age was given two oral doses of the Leptospirosis Nosode in the 200C and 10M potencies with an interval of 7-9 days between doses. Then ten to twelve months later, they were given another two oral doses of the 10M potency 7-9 days apart. These homeopathic remedies were administered by approximately 5000 Cuban public health system personnel using five drops (250-300 µL) under the tongue (sublingually) 20 minutes away from eating or drinking or smoking. One year of comparison between the area that received doses (the Intervention Region, IR) and the Rest of the Country (RC) showed a significant decrease of cases of Leptospirosis in the IR. This study looked at the numbers generated by the same institutions that are responsible for managing epidemic disease diagnosis and prognosis in Cuba (the national weekly report based on provincial data generated by the Trend Analysis Unit from the Minister of Epidemiology of the Ministry of Public Health of Cuba). According to Bracho (2009) their prediction of number of cases of Leptrospirosis was 111-461 in the Intervention Region in the most precarious 3 week period (weeks 47-52 of 2007 because of number of days between the start of the increased rainfalls and infection rates) when only actually 38 confirmed cases showed up. This was a reduction of 91.8% to 65.8% in the IR. Despite that there were increased risks of Leptospirosis infection that year due to extreme rainfall in October-November in the IR, the annual number of cases decreased by 84% while in the RC there was an increase of 21.7%. The authors conclude that these findings lend to a high degree of confidence that using homeopathic remedies to prevent disease in populations is a useful tool for epidemics and pandemics.

This study shows successful implementation of homeopathy for a population during an actual epidemic and demonstrates that homeopathy is successful in preventing illness during epidemics or pandemics. Whether this study will model a way that homeopathy can show success in preventing disease amongst a population for epidemic or pandemic disease outbreaks is still in question (Roniger, 2010). The positive aspect of this study is that there were millions of Cubans who willingly experienced homeopathy by taking those remedies in compliance with their predominant health professionals. As Rutton (2008) points out, changing towards a belief in homeopathic medicine might require a turning point such as a personal experience. What that has been shown to do is “We may accept evidence that we did not accept before. We may abandon the first prior, rearrange and re-interpret the evidence and then the process of sequential updating can start”. That way a previous belief that contradicts the idea that homeopathic remedies will not continue to stand in the way of some possible data or information being presented in research of various types.

Conclusions:

In this essay I’ve brought to attention various types of demonstrations of the use of homeopathy for epidemics and pandemics, including some that are the accepted standard for medical science. Using these examples it seems to be possible to demonstrate the specific success with RCT studies, population studies plus historical records on the use of homeopathy during epidemics/pandemics. As Bracho says (2010) it is also possible to conduct further studies with a significant level of confidence that homeopathy will prove itself as a valid way to address the health of populations during epidemics/pandemics. However, the criteria required in order to conduct this type of research isn’t always easily available to homeopaths in various parts of the world. So far it seems that there is a facility in Cuba that has opportunity to do this plus certain homeopaths in certain clinics of India are also already established for these types of studies.

There are challenges to the understanding and acceptance of use of homeopathic remedies for epidemics and pandemics. Part of it lies within the current paradigm that predominates. The disbelief that highly diluted substances such as homeopathic remedies could have a therapeutic action is the paradigm that limits the acceptance of studies on homeopathy despite their success in showing specific outcomes. With a prior acceptance of biochemical medicine combined with an expectation that homeopathy would act in the same manner, there is not a certain type of research that would qualify to change that disbelief that homeopathic remedies work because the prior belief is too many steps away from the new belief. It is recommended from this overview that any further studies to address the ability to use homeopathy for epidemics and pandemics should acknowledge that whether the reader concludes the study acceptable or not has to do with the challenge of the paradigm surrounding how homeopathic remedies work.

REFERENCES:

Bandyopadhyay, B. (2010) Decreased intensity of japanese encephalitis virus infection in chick chorioallantoic membrane under influence of ultradilutions of belladonna extract. American Journal of Infectious Diseases 6 (2): 24-28.

Bandyopadhyay, B. (2011) Suckling mice of “belladonna 200” fed mothers evade virulent nakayama strain japanese encephalitis virus infection. International Journal of Microbiological Research 2 (3): 252-257.

Billings, M. (1997) The Medical and Scientific Conceptions of Influenza. Last accessed December 16th, 2013 at http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/fluscimed.html

Bodman, F. (1975) The quest for specifics. British Homoeopathic Journal. 64 (1): 30-39.

Bracho, G., Varela, E., Ferna ́ndez, R., Ordaz, B., Marzoa, N., Mene ́ndez, J., Garc ́ıa, L., Gilling, E., … Campa, C. (2010) Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for leptospirosis epidemic control. Homeopathy 99, 156-166. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2010.05.009

Fuller, S. (2003) Kuhn vs. Popper. Duxford, Cambridge, UK: Icon Books Ltd.

Golden, I. (2007) Vaccination & homeoprophylaxis? A review of risks and alternatives (6th edition), Canberra: National Library

Hahnemann, S. (1996). Organon of the medical art (6th Edition) edited and annotated by W.B. O’Rielly. Redmond, Washington: Birdcage Books.

Hahnemann, S. (1852) Lesser writings of Samuel Hahnemann last accessed Dec 2, 2013 at http://books.google.ca/books?id=YwTZzl_fk74C&dq=lesser%20writings%20by%20samuel%20hahnemann&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q=lesser%20writings%20by%20samuel%20hahnemann&f=false

Mathie, R., Baitson, E., Frye, J., Nayak, C., Manchanda, R, and Fisher, P. (2013) Homeopathic treatment of patients with influenza-like illness during the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic in india. Homeopathy 102, 187-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2013.04.001

Malthouse, S., (2010) Homeopathy and Influenze; The Spanish Flu experience. The Immunity Challenge Conference Presentation. last accessed December 2, 2013 at http://www.cmcgc.com/media/handouts/061035/040_Malthouse.pdf

Navab, I. (2012) Lives saved by homeopathy in epidemics and pandemics. last accessed November 23, 2013 at http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/epidemics-and-pandemics/

Puri, B. (2009) Last accessed Dec 12-13 at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/some-seek-alternative-swine-flu-therapies-1.833973

Roniger, H & Jacobs. (2010) Prophylaxis against leptospirosis using a nosode: Can this cohort study serve as a model for future replications?. The Faculty of homeopathy 99, 152-155. doi.10.1016/j.homp.2010.06.004

Rutton, A. (2008) How can we change beliefs? A bayesian perspective. The Faculty of Homeopathy 97, 214-219. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.007

Vandenbroucke, JP & de Crean. (2001) Alternative medicine “a mirror image” for scientific reasoning in conventional medicine. Ann Intern Med 135, 507-513

Webster’s online dictionary. Last accessed November 23rd, 2013 at http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/epidemic

Webster’s online dictionary. Last accessed November 23rd, 2013 at http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pandemic

Dysfunction at Wikipedia on Homeopathic Medicine by Dana Ullman www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDana

Dysfunction at Wikipedia on Homeopathic Medicine by Dana Ullman www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDanaPosted: 10/10/2014 10:05 am EDT Updated: 10/10/2014 3:59 pm EDT

In April, 2014, I had the happenstance to run into Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, on the streets of Vancouver. I was there to lecture to a group of medical professionals, while he was attending the TED talks. I expressed my appreciation to him for creating Wikipedia. I also then expressed concern to him about the "unencyclopedic" tone and information in Wikipedia's article on homeopathy. He then encouraged me to express my concerns in writing, and this is that response.

It may surprise and even shock most people to learn that, according to the Washington Post, the two most controversial subjects on Wikipedia in four leading languages (English, French, German, and Spanish) are the articles on "Jesus Christ" and "homeopathy."

Because I know that you want Wikipedia to be the best modern resource of reliable information, my intent in writing is to show you where Wikipedia is falling below your high standards, and in fact, Wikipedia's article on homeopathy is providing strongly biased, inaccurate information. This strong bias is a symptom of a deeper problem at Wikipedia in select articles on topics that challenge dominant medical and scientific worldviews. After reading the below body of scientific evidence on the subject of homeopathic medicine, I hope that we can engage in a dialogue that will help reduce the amount of misinformation that pervades certain subjects, such as homeopathy.

Evidence of the strong bias against homeopathy and against an objective encyclopedic tone is evident throughout the article. I will first focus on the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article and the 6 references which purport to substantiate these claims:

Homeopathy i/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος hómoios "like-" and πάθος páthos "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like, according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.[1] Homeopathy is a pseudoscience[2][3][4] and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.[5] [6]

References from Wikipedia's article on "Homeopathy":

Hahnemann, Samuel (1833). The Homœopathic Medical Doctrine, or "Organon of the Healing Art". Dublin: W.F. Wakeman. pp. iii , 48-49 . "Observation, reflection, and experience have unfolded to me that the best and true method of cure is founded on the principle, similia similibus curentur. To cure in a mild, prompt, safe, and durable manner, it is necessary to choose in each case a medicine that will excite an affection similar (ὅμοιος πάθος) to that against which it is employed." Translator: Charles H. Devrient, Esq. ^ Tuomela R (1987). "Chapter 4: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt JC, Marcello P. Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 98 (Springer). pp. 83-101. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4 . ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8. ^ Smith K (2012). "Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical". Bioethics 26 (9): 508-512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x . ^ Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). "Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?" . Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century (Springer). pp. 19-57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2 . ISBN 978-1-4614-8540-7. "within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery" ^ Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet 366 (9487): 726-32. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2 . PMID 16125589 . Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy - Science and Technology Committee , British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 22 February 2010, retrieved 2014-04-05

Is Homeopathy Really a "Pseudoscience"?

Wikipedia asserts that "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

The "editors" at Wikipedia have deemed homeopathy to be a "pseudoscience" even though randomized double-blind and placebo controlled studies that have been published in many of the best medical journals in the world have shown efficacy of homeopathic treatment for many common and serious health problems (below is a partial list of such studies):

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. The journal, Chest, is the official publication of the American College of Chest Physicians. Hayfever: Reilly D, Taylor M, McSharry C, et al., Is homoeopathy a placebo response? controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model," Lancet, October 18, 1986, ii: 881-6. Asthma: Reilly, D, Taylor, M, Beattie, N, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?" Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6. Fibromyalgia: Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. This journal is the official journal of the British Society of Rheumatology. Fibromyalgia: Fisher P, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC, et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia)," BMJ, 299(August 5, 1989):365-6. Childhood diarrhea: Jacobs, J, Jimenez, LM, Gloyd, SS, Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Study in Nicaragua, Pediatrics, May, 1994,93,5:719-25. ADD/ADHD: Frei, H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr., July 27,2005,164:758-767.

Jimmy, can you name ONE other system of "pseudoscience" that has a similar body of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trials published in high-impact medical journals showing efficacy of treatment?

It is more than a tad ironic that this first paragraph in the Wikipedia article on homeopathy references only one article that was published in a peer-review medical journal. This one article by Shang, et al. has been thoroughly discredited in an article written by Lüdtke and Rutten that was published in a leading "high impact" journal that specializes in evaluating clinical research. The Shang meta-analysis is highlighted on Wikipedia without reference to any critique of it. The fact that there is no hint of any problems in the Shang review, let alone a reference to the Lüdtke and Rutten article that provided evidence of bias, is itself a cause for concern.

The Shang article is also the primary reference used by the widely ridiculed "Evidence Check" reports issued by the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons, which also conveniently omits reference to the severe limitations of this one review of research. Further, the "Evidence Check" was signed off by just three of the 15 members of the original committee, never discussed or endorsed by the whole UK Parliament, and had its recommendations ignored by the UK Department of Health.

It should be made clear that the Shang meta-analysis was co-authored by M. Egger who is a well-known skeptic of homeopathy and who wrote to the Lancet that his hypothesis before conducting the review was that homeopathy was only a placebo effect. Readers were never informed of this bias.

The meta-analysis by Shang evaluated and compared 110 placebo-controlled trials testing homeopathic medicines with 110 testing conventional drugs, finding 21 homeopathy trials (19%) but only nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of "higher quality." Lüdtke and Rutten found that a positive outcome for homeopathy would have resulted if Shang had simply compared these high quality trials against each other. However, with some clever statistical footwork, Shang chose to limit the high quality trials to only 8 homeopathic and 6 conventional medical trials, a result that led to a "negative" outcome for homeopathy. Lüdtke and Rutten determined this review as biased for its "arbitrarily defined one subset of eight trials" and they deemed the entire review as "falsely negative."

By reducing the number of studies, Shang created convoluted logic that enabled his team to avoid evaluation of ANY of the above high quality studies that were all published in respected medical journals. Further, 7 of 8 homeopathic studies only tested one homeopathic medicine for everyone with the similar disease even though one of the primary tenets of homeopathy requires individualization of treatment. Many other extremely scathing critiques of the Shang research were published in the Lancet shortly after publication, including the exclusion of one high quality homeopathic study due to the questionable assertion that the researchers could not find a study in all of conventional medical research that treated patients with polyarthritis (arthritis that involves five or more joints).

Skeptics typically assert that the above high-quality studies published in high-impact medical journals are simply "cherry-picking" the positive studies, and then, they begin cherry-picking studies that had negative results. However, skeptics of homeopathy fail to differentiate good, sound scientific investigations that are respectful of the homeopathic method and those that are not. Just because a study was conducted with a randomized double-blind and placebo controlled method does NOT mean that the study gave the appropriate homeopathic medicine for each patient or even each group of patients. This ignorance is akin to someone saying that antibiotics are ineffective for "infections" without differentiating between bacterial infections, viral infections, and fungal infections. Ironically, skeptics of homeopathy consistently show a very sloppy attitude about scientific investigations.

What the Most Comprehensive Review of Homeopathic Research Found...

Skeptics commonly assert that various meta-analyses verify that homeopathy doesn't work and that homeopathic medicines are equivalent to the effects of a placebo. These skeptics typically chose to ignore various meta-analyses that were published in highly respected medical journals and that show positive benefits from homeopathic medicines. Skeptics also ignore the largest and most comprehensive review of research ever conducted...one that was funded by the government of Switzerland.

It is useful to know that the Shang/Egger meta-analysis was funded by the same Swiss government's Complementary Medicine Evaluation Program that also funded a much more detailed and comprehensive review of clinical research, preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells), epidemiological evidence, and cost-effectiveness studies.

This more comprehensive Swiss government-funded report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," with 24 studies having a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions. When the researchers evaluated only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.

Ironically, the Shang/Egger meta-analysis acknowledged that there have been at least eight clinical trials of patients with acute infections of the upper respiratory tract and that there is "robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works." And yet, Shang/Egger assert that this limited number of trials is inadequate for evaluating homeopathy, while at the same time they assert that eight other trials provided unquestionable evidence for damning homeopathy (it should be noted that Shang/Egger somehow determined that some of the studies on respiratory infection and allergy were not "high quality," even though numerous other meta-analyses have unanimously defined three trials by David Reilly as high quality (two were published in the British Medical Journal and one was published in the Lancet).

In actual fact, although some meta-analyses have had a "negative" result, there have also been a significant number of meta-analyses that have had positive results, including this partial list:

Linde L, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Jonas W, "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. Although a later review by some of these authors found a reduced significance, the authors never asserted that the significance was no longer present. Further, two of the lead authors of this article provided a very sharp critique of the Shang, et al. review of research (2005). Also, both Linde and Jonas wrote to the Lancet after the Shang/Egger article was published and asserted that the Lancet should be "embarrassed" by their publication of this article and the accompanied editorial (Lancet, 366 December 17, 2005:2081-2). Kleijnen J, Knipschild P ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ 1991, 302, 316-23. Of the 22 best studies, 15 showed positive results from homeopathic treatment. The researchers concluded, "there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy." Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008). Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. 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, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. The BMJ published an editorial in the issue in which this study was published asserting, "It may be time to confront the conclusion that homeopathy and placebo differ...... This may be more plausible than the conclusion that their trials have produced serial false positive results" (This week in the BMJ. Homoeopathic dilutions may be better than placebo. BMJ 2000;321:0). Jonas, WB, Linde, Klaus, and Ramirez, Gilbert, "Homeopathy and Rheumatic Disease," Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, February 2000,1:117-123.

Is Homeopathy Really "Implausible"?

The third paragraph in the Wikipedia article continues to show both strong bias against homeopathy and inaccurate information.

Homeopathy lacks biological plausibility[10] and the axioms of homeopathy have been refuted for some time.[11] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are both scientifically implausible[12][13] and not physically possible.[14] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[15][16] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. Overall there is no evidence of efficacy.[12][17][18][19] Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidence that it does not work, has been criticized as unethical because it increases the suffering of patients by discouraging the use of real medicine,[20] with the World Health Organisation warning against using homeopathy to try to treat severe diseases such as HIV and malaria.[21] The continued practice, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to homeopathy being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense,[22] quackery,[4][23][24] or a sham.[25]

Ironically, the article makes reference to articles written by known antagonists to homeopathy (such as E. Ernst and K. Atwood) that have not even been published in peer-review scientific or medical journals. Reference #10 by Ernst was published in "The Skeptical Inquirer," a magazine that is not listed in Index Medicus or any other respected scientific indexing service, and reference #11 by Atwood wasn't even published in a magazine but at a website. If and when any person tried to edit the article on homeopathy in any way in which homeopathy is presented in a positive light and makes reference to a "magazine" or a "website," that person would be laughed off of Wikipedia, and yet, the editors of the homeopathy article allow and even encourage the use of inappropriate skeptical references (according to Wikipedia's usual standards).

In the same way that Wikipedia's editors have inappropriately deemed homeopathy to be "pseudoscientific," they have also deemed that homeopathy lacks "plausibility." The definition of plausibility is: "having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable."

The journal, Langmuir, is the journal of the American Chemical Society, and in 2012, they published an important article that provided a plausible explanation for the actions of homeopathic medicines. First, they verified using three different types of spectroscopy that clearly showed that nanoparticles of six original medicinal agents persisted in solutions even after they were diluted 1:100 six times, thirty times, and even two-hundred times.

Avogadro's number predicts that none of the original medicinal agents would have ANY persisting molecules of the original medicinal substance would remain after 12 dilutions of 1:100. However, the scientists describe reasonable and even predictable factors that lead to the persistence of nanoparticles after their multiple dilutions. The scientists note that the use of double-distilled water in glass vials leads to varying amounts of silica fragments that fall into the water, as much as 6ppm. The vigorous shaking of the glass vial creates bubbles and "nanobubbles" that bring oxygen into the water and that increase substantially the water pressure (William Tiller, PhD, the former head of Stanford's Department of Material Science, estimated this pressure to be 10,000 atmospheres).

Ultimately, this increased water pressure forces whatever medicinal substance is in the double-distilled water into the silica, and every substance will interact with the silica in its own idiosyncratic way. Then, when 90% of the water is dumped out, the silica fragments predictably cling to the glass walls.

When skeptics of homeopathy reference Avogadro's number as "evidence" that homeopathic medicines beyond 24X or 12C have "no remaining molecules left," they are simply verifying their own ignorance of Avogadro's number because this widely recognized principle in chemistry does NOT account for the complexities of the silica fragments, the bubbles or nanobubbles, nor the increased water pressure. In fact, any serious scientist or educated individual who asserts that a homeopathic medicine is "beyond Avogadro's number" has no ground on which they stand. And yet, Avogadro's number is prominently a part of Wikipedia's article on homeopathy.

Despite the obfuscation throughout Wikipedia's article on homeopathy, in actual fact, the homeopathic pharmaceutical procedure called "potentization" is a clever, perhaps brilliant, method of creating nanoparticles of whatever substance is originally placed in the glass vial. Even more compelling is the significant and growing body of evidence that nanodoses of medicinal agents have several benefits over crude doses of the same substance, including enhanced bioavailability, adsorptive capacity, intracellular accessibility, increased ability to cross cell membranes and even the blood brain barrier, and of course, a substantial better safety profile.

The creation of nanodoses actually increases various characteristics of a substance's properties. Once a substance has an extremely small size but has larger surface area to volume ratio, the nanodose properties create increased chemical and biological reactivity, electromagnetic, optical, thermal, and quantum effects. Further, the idiosyncratic properties of nanomedicines reduce the required doses by orders of magnitude and predictably reduce toxicity.

In light of the above, it is stunning and shocking that Wikipedia's article on "Nanomedicine" has no mention of homeopathy, which rightly is deemed to be the original nanomedicine and nanopharmacology. At a time in the history of medicine and science in which the field of nanomedicine is becoming increasingly accepted and respected, Wikipedia seems stuck in the 20th century, or perhaps the 18th century. It is not surprising that there is an international and inter-disciplinary journal that focuses on the power of extremely small doses in various biological systems, not just medicine.

Given the above, it is no longer accurate to consider homeopathic doses to be "implausible." Wikipedia's article on homeopathy asserts otherwise, deeming homeopathy to be "biologically implausible" (cited by a non-peer review magazine, called "The Skeptical Inquirer," that is not listed in any scientific indexing service), "a sham" (cited at a website!), and running "counter to the laws of chemistry and physics" (what is interesting here is that the article cites an article in the journal, "Homeopathy," and yet, whenever a positive statement or clinical trial or basic sciences trial is published in this same journal, the Wikipedia editors claim that this journal is not worthy of a citation).

Further, just one of the theories of how homeopathic medicines work has been described as the "memory of water." The Wikipedia article refers to this concept as "erroneous" without any acknowledgement that it is inaccurate to assert such a black-and-white statement. It is more accurate to say that this theory is "controversial" because there is, in fact, evidence of a "memory in water," as both verified by the above research on nanoparticles remaining in homeopathically potentized water and as evidenced by research conducted by the French virologist Luc Montagnier who discovered the AIDS virus and who won the Nobel Prize for doing so. Dr. Montagnier has not only published research that provides evidence of this "memory of water," he was interviewed in the prestigious journal, Science, and on July 5, 2014, the French government's public television station showed an hour-long documentary entitled "We Found the Memory in Water" ("On a retrouvé la mémoire de l'eau")

What is shocking about Wikipedia's article of homeopathy is that there is NO reference to this Nobel Prize winner or to his interview in one of the most respected scientific journals in the world today or any reference to French government's documentary on this very subject. Obviously, the people who are editing the homeopathy article have a profound bias.

Numerous people have sought to improve Wikipedia's article on homeopathy, but they have been blocked or prohibited from editing the article. In my case, I was blocked from editing any article to do with homeopathy because I was deemed to have a "conflict of interest" due to the fact that I am a homeopath. Ironically, no medical doctor is prohibited from editing on any medical subject just because she or he is a medical doctor! Further, the bias against homeopathy and against any positive evidence for homeopathy is so strong that the vast majority of the articles from the high impact medical and scientific journals are not referenced or described in the Wikipedia article on homeopathy, while there are numerous low-level references to websites and to non-peer review magazines that populate Wikipedia's article.

I could easily show over a hundred other sentences in Wikipedia's article that are either errors of fact or that are evidence of bias or spin against homeopathy, but I think that I have adequately and accurately provided you with solid testimony proving serious problems with Wikipedia's article on homeopathy.

I await your reply to this letter which you have requested, and I look forward to collaborating with you to improving the article on homeopathy at Wikipedia as well as in establishing guidelines so that strong bias is minimized throughout your usually excellent website.

Pathological Skepticism

Brian Josephson, Ph.D., won a Nobel Prize in 1973 when he was only 23 years old and is presently professor emeritus at Cambridge University. Josephson contends that many scientists today suffer from "pathological disbelief" -- that is, an unscientific attitude that is typified by the statement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it" (Josephson, 1997).

Josephson asserts that skeptics of homeopathy suffer from a chronic ignorance of this subject, and he maintains that their criticisms of homeopathy are easily refuted, "The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments."

Dr. Luc Montagnier won a Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, and in an interview in Science (Dec. 24, 2010), he similarly expressed real concern about the unscientific atmosphere that presently exists on certain unconventional subjects such as homeopathy, "I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste's results (showing effects from homeopathic doses), but they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectual terror from people who don't understand it."

Montagnier concluded this interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience. He responded adamantly: "No, because it's not pseudoscience. It's not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."

Ultimately, at Wikipedia there is a certain substantial body of editors who embody "pathological skepticism" and who do not allow good evidence from high-quality studies and meta-analyses published in high-impact journals to be included into the body of evidence for homeopathy just because they provide a positive spin to the subject. On the other hand, these same editors allow references to non-peer review sources, such as popular magazine and websites, when the information in these questionably valid sources is offensive to homeopathy. Today, Wikipedia's article on homeopathy is a classic example of a biased, off-balance, and non-encyclopedic review of the subject.

Practical Solutions...

Jimmy, I assume that you want your website to be the most reliable resource possible, but it can and will never become one unless you, as the founder of Wikipedia, provide some guidance and guidelines so that information for OR against a subject are fair and accurate. In 2009, at a TED talk, you claimed that Wikipedia's most important virtue is its objective reporting of information; you asserted, "the biggest and the most important thing (about Wikipedia) is our neutral point-of-view policy."

Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, quit the organization several years ago due to serious concerns about its integrity. He maintained:

"In some fields and some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles...The people with the most influence in the community are the ones who have the most time on their hands--not necessarily the most knowledgeable--and who manipulate Wikipedia's eminently gameable system."

Ultimately, there are indeed subjects at Wikipedia that will probably remain highly controversial no matter what is or isn't said, and it makes sense to inform readers about this issue. However, at present, the article on homeopathy strongly suggests that there is no or inconsequential evidence that homeopathic medicines have biological activity and/or clinical efficacy, and this letter clearly dispels that myth. Objective reviews of both basic science research and clinical studies suggest that there are simply too many high quality laboratory and clinical trials that show positive results.

One solution to dealing with Wikipedia's article is to have two separate sections in the article that present the "skeptics' point of view" and the "homeopaths' point of view." Although one could have hoped that the article would have evolved into this multi-view perspective, there are simply too many anti-homeopathy fundamentalists who have squatted on this article and have made it literally impossible to have any positive or even any slightly positive assertions about homeopathy.

Because this letter proves that Skeptics are incapable of presenting information on homeopathy with even a modicum of objectivity, perhaps the best solution is to enable both viewpoints to be able to express themselves. Some people claim that debate is the best way to understand complex subjects, and therefore, allowing and even encouraging a multi-perspective viewpoint in articles at Wikipedia may be an important and worthwhile change in your website's policies.

I can provide other specific suggestions for helping Wikipedia create a truly neutral point of view if and when you are open to constructive dialogue.

You have now been given strong evidence that Wikipedia is NOT maintaining a "neutral point-of-view" on the subject of homeopathy. My question is to you now is: What do you suggest should be done to rectify this problem?

This letter was also signed by: Michael Frass, MD, Professor of Medicine, Medical University of Vienna (Austria) Paolo Bellavite, MD, Professor, Università of Verona (Italy), Department of Pathology and Diagnostics Paolo Roberti di Sarsina, MD, Observatory and Methods for Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy; Charity for Person Centered Medicine-Moral Entity, Bologna, Italy; Expert for Non-Conventional Medicine (2006-2013), High Council for Health, Ministry of Health, Italy Dr Clare Relton, Senior Research Fellow (Public Health), School of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield (UK) Stephan Baumgartner, PhD, Institute of Complementary Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Integrative Medicine, University of Witten-Herdecke, Germany Lex Rutten MD, homeopathic physician, independent researcher.

References:

Max Ehrenfreund, The Science of Wikipedia Flamewars, Washington Post. July 23, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/the-science-of-wikipedia-flamewars/ Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet 366 (9487): 726-32. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2 . PMID 16125589 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589 Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18834714 Dana Ullman. The Disinformation Campaign Against Homeopathy. HuffingtonPost. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/disinformation-about-homeopathy_b_952967.html Zoe Mullan, senior editor at The Lancet, acknowledged in the publication's press release for this article, "Professor Egger stated at the onset that he expected to find that homeopathy had no effect other than that of placebo. His 'conflict' was therefore transparent. We saw this as sufficient" EHM News Bureau, 2005). The editors chose not to inform readers of this bias. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077 Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation. Langmuir. 2012 Nov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23083226 Demangeat, J.-L, Gries, P, Poitevin, B, Droesbeke J.-J, Zahaf, T, Maton, F, Pierart, C, Muller, RN, Low-Field NMR Water Proton Longitudinal Relaxation in Ultrahighly Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Silica-Lactose Prepared in Glass Material for Pharmaceutical Use, Applied Magnetic Resonance, 26, 2004:465-481. Bell IR, Schwartz GE. Adaptive network nanomedicine: an integrated model for homeopathic medicine. Frontiers in Bioscience (Scholar Ed) 2013;5(2):685-708. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23277079 Bell IR, et al. Advances in integrative nanomedicine for improving infectious disease treatment in public health. Eur J Integr Med (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2012.11.002. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685499/ Bell IR, Koithan M. A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012;12(1):191. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6882-12-191.pdf Roduner E. Size matters: why nanomaterials are different. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006;35(7):583-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16791330 Bell IR, MD PhD, Ives JA, Jonas WB. Nonlinear Effects of Nanoparticles: Biological Variability From Hormetic Doses, Small Particle Sizes, and Dynamic Adaptive Interactions. Dose Response. May 2014; 12(2): 202-232.Published online Nov 7, 2013. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.13-025. Bell. PMCID: PMC4036395. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4036395/ Bell IR, Sarter B, Koithan M, et al. Integrative Nanomedicine: Treating Cancer with Nanoscale Natural Products. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, January 2014. 36-53. http://tinyurl.com/mqe5p88 Armstead AI, Li B. Nanomedicine as an emerging approach against intracellular pathogens. Int J Nanomed. 2011;8(3):188-96. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=(nanomedicine)%20AND%20ARMSTEAD Ullman D. Let's have a serious discussion of nanopharmacology and homeopathy. FASEB J December 2006 20:2661; doi:10.1096/fj.06-1205ufm http://www.fasebj.org/content/20/14/2661.full Dose-Response: An International Journal. http://www.dose-response.com/ Montagnier L, Aissa J, Ferris S, et al, Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81-90. http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf Enserink M, Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier, French Nobelist Escapes "Intellectual Terror" to Pursue Radical Ideas in China. Science 24 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6012 p. 1732. DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6012.1732 http://www.france5.fr/et-vous/France-5-et-vous/Les-programmes/LE-MAG-N-28-2014/articles/p-20549-On-a-retrouve-la-memoire-de-l-eau.htm Sanger, Larry. Why Citizendium? http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=286

Need a meaningful and personal Gift Certificate this season?

Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.

Singh VK, et al. Show allJournal

J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64. Affiliation Abstract

Autoimmunity to the central nervous system (CNS), especially to myelin basic protein (MBP), may play a causal role in autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. Because many autistic children harbor elevated levels of measles antibodies, we conducted a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and MBP autoantibodies. Using serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 control children, antibodies were assayed by ELISA or immunoblotting methods. ELISA analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. Immunoblotting analysis revealed the presence of an unusual MMR antibody in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but not in control sera. This antibody specifically detected a protein of 73-75 kD of MMR. This protein band, as analyzed with monoclonal antibodies, was immunopositive for measles hemagglutinin (HA) protein but not for measles nucleoprotein and rubella or mumps viral proteins. Thus the MMR antibody in autistic sera detected measles HA protein, which is unique to the measles subunit of the vaccine. Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism. Copyright 2002 National Science Council, ROC and S. Karger AG, Basel PMID 12145534 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12145534/

THE ORGANON by Samuel Hahnemann - An Outline

THE ORGANON by Samuel Hahnemann - An Outline Provided in tribute to Julian Winston, May 1941 – June 2005. Beloved Editor-In-Chief of Homeopathy Today for 21 years.

It is often said that studying the Organon is fundamental for any successful homeopath. In this series we will glean some Winston Wisdom by revisiting Julian’s outline of this masterpiece.

Paragraphs 1-5 Basic postulates about disease and what healing is about (part 1):

1. The physician’s only mission is to cure the sick; it is not to speculate on the nature of disease. 2. The ideal cure is rapid, gentle, permanent and removes the whole disease in the shortest, least harmful way, according to easily comprehensible principles. 3. If the physician understands what is curable in disease, and understands what is curative in medicines, and understands how to apply the medicines to the disease (according to well defined principles), and knows how to remove the conditions which prevent the patient from getting well, he is a true physician. 4. The need to recognize and remove the maintaining causes. 5. Pay attention to the exciting cause and the fundamental cause (which is usually a chronic disease) including the patient's character, activities, way of life, habits, etc.

Note: The above is only an outline. To comprehend the Organon in its fullness, we recommend that you read the book. The Organon is usually studied by the intermediate to advanced student of homeopathy.

Reducing healthcare costs with homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine: a literature review

Reducing healthcare costs with homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine: a literature reviewAbstract: Background: With an ageing European population and the associated rise in chronic diseases pressuring European health systems, an investigation into the appropriateness, cost-effectiveness and efficacy of various medical systems is needed. ECHAMP carried out a literature review on cost-effectiveness of homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine in order to show how homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine can contribute to a sustainable health system. Methods: An extensive search was carried out in the electronic databases of Medline (Pubmed), Google Scholar and Science Direct. The articles were analysed on direct, indirect and intangible cost reductions. Results: Eight studies showed remarkable direct costs savings by the use of homeopathy while seven studies indicated direct cost reductions with the treatment of anthroposophic medicine. One study showed significant direct cost savings for both homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine. None of the studies performed an exact cost calculation for the indirect cost savings of homeopathy whereas only one study calculated the indirect cost savings due to anthroposophic medicine. The latter estimated that indirect cost savings ranged between 41.5 and 113.1 euros per patient per day. Almost all studies for both homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine showed an increase in Quality of Life and reductions in disease severity. Conclusion: Both homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine can contribute to sustainable health systems by reducing direct, indirect and intangible healthcare costs.

ECHAMP represents the industry for homeopathic and anthroposophic medicinal products in Europe.It endorses the important role that homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine play and can play inhealthcare and seeks to maximise availability of homeopathic and anthroposophic medicinal products for all citizens of Europe. ECHAMP works to ensure an appropriate regulatory status for these safe, effective and high quality products. ECHAMP E.E.I.G. Rue Gray 100B - 1040 Brussels office@echamp.eu Tel: (32) 2 649 94 40 Fax: (32) 2 649 41 77

Dana Ullman speaking for an appropriate amount of time to address "What is Homeopathy"; concisely and precisely! Thank you Dana;)

http://www.yogahub.tv/mmt-108/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mmt-108

CBC's Marketplace and Homeopathy; The Real Truth

Will CBC bring more attention to Homeoprophylaxis (what they’ll describe as an alternative to vaccines) than homeopaths can?!?

A few years ago, a journalist requested information on homeopathy for a show on CBC. I am a typical Canadian and so therefore I have a strong affinity for CBC. I asked clearly to the organizers of the show that this would be a fair and true representation of homeopathy. I know that it is easy to target aspects of homeopathy because of its complex and unique principles of healing. However, the producers of CBC’s Marketplace expressed specifically and clearly that this would not be the way they would use the information they gather. I met with them and they interviewed me at my clinic. I also faithfully gave them a number for one of my clients that had agreed she wouldn’t mind being interviewed. I printed out for them a thick pile of many research reports that presented sound science backing up many of the principles of healing used in the science of homeopathy. That show which has repeated more times than any other episode of CBC’s Marketplace ended up being truly blatantly biased and absolutely NOT scientific. There was no mention of the scientific reports that I and others had given to them.
When that episode was shown, there were many people who posted words of support and commitment to the option of homeopathy in the healing choices. The Marketplace website seemed to edit and only release a certain number of the responses. People writing in support of homeopathy reported that their posts had not been published. People wrote in to CBC’s producers, CBC’s Ombudsman, and the homeopathic community bonded over the outrage of this slander. This fall, CBC plans to release another show about an aspect of homeopathic practice known as homeoprophylaxis. Homeoprophylaxis is the use of homeopathic remedies in anticipation for prevention of a specific health concern. The founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann writes about using the principles of homeoprophylaxis back in 1798 in his publication on Scarlet Fever called “The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever”, in ‘Lesser Writings’ (B.Jain Publishing. New Delhi. P.369ff). http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/viewFile/360/407 using the homoeopathic remedy called Belladonna. He also refers to the ways to conduct homeoprophylaxis in the Aphorisms number 100, 101, 102 and 241 of his written guide to homeopathy known as ‘The Organon’ first published in 1810 (Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. 6th Edn. (Translated by William Boericke). New Delhi: B Jain Publishers, 1991). The most contemporary uses of homeoprophylaxis are based on the science conducted mostly by Dr. Isaac Golden http://www.homstudy.net/Research/ and Dr. G. Bracho. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839
Despite that currently there exists (and will continually be more of) quality research to demonstrate the effective use of homeopathy to address specific health concerns, CBC will attempt to convince you that there is none. Let me guide you to the BOX WIDGET on my blog https://homeopathiccures.wordpress.com
That is where you’ll be able to access homeopathic experts advice or writings by homeopathic experts. In the words of Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expert), an expert is defined as “having or showing special skill or knowledge because of what you have been taught or what you have experienced”. With this in mind, please QUESTION who CBC will refer to as ‘experts’ on topics of homeopathy.
Instead of truthfully facing the experts on homeopathy (myself and a known few of my colleagues) CBC Marketplace’s approach to get information from us was to plant a fake client into our private practice. A few months later, an email was sent to me stating that they had done this and would I do an interview them?

ARRGH!

Instead they chose a mysterious random bunch of people http://homeopathiccures.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/centre-for-inquiry.pdf…random people who don’t know that you can NOT overdose on homeopathic remedies – and that this is a GOOD thing BUT that it is IRRESPONSIBLE to try to do your own ‘experiments’ on a form of medicine that you don’t have a clue about.
Needless to say, I am NOT doing any kind of happy dance http://animalfactoftheday.blogspot.ca/2012/04/manakin-bird-can-moonwalk.html in anticipation of a new episode focussing on Homeoprophylaxis.
The tragic irony is that I have a feeling that CBC Marketplace’s blatant show of ignorance will be apparent to most critical thinkers that are their audience and those people will either look for more information to satisfy their curiosity OR they will stand stronger in their commitment to choices for health care options for Canadians. In case this is the place you’ve come to for more information, let me assure you that maintaining the homeopathy as a choice made available to us is more important than our regular freedoms of choice as it has to do with the most important aspect of our existence because as they say, ‘if we don’t have our health, what do we have?’ That is the essence of what drives most people to homeopathy. In ONE country alone there are over 100 million people using homeopathy (http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/status-of-homeopathy/)(India). Also keep in mind that the top two most debated topics on Wikipedia are Jesus and homeopathy
If you’ve seen the CBC Marketplace’s representation of homeopathy and would like to take part in some discussions about it, please keep in touch at https://www.facebook.com/AccessNaturalHealing/photos/a.119846306893.123640.10145471893/10152470442151894/?type=1&theater
Sincerely Yours in Homeopathy
Elena Cecchetto (EL)
info@accessnaturalhealing.com
604-568-4663
http://www.accessnaturalhealing.com
© 2014 Elena Cecchetto

CBC and Homeopathy; The Real Truth

Will CBC bring more attention to Homeoprophylaxis (what they'll describe as an alternative to vaccines) than homeopaths can?!? A few years ago, a journalist requested information on homeopathy for a show on CBC. I am a typical Canadian and so therefore I have a strong affinity for CBC. I asked clearly to the organizers of the show that this would be a fair and true representation of homeopathy. I know that it is easy to target aspects of homeopathy because of its complex and unique principles of healing. However, the producers of CBC's Marketplace expressed specifically and clearly that this would not be the way they would use the information they gather. I met with them and they interviewed me at my clinic. I also faithfully gave them a number for one of my clients that had agreed she wouldn't mind being interviewed. I printed out for them a thick pile of many research reports that presented sound science backing up many of the principles of healing used in the science of homeopathy. That show which has repeated more times than any other episode of CBC's Marketplace ended up being truly blatantly biased and absolutely NOT scientific. There was no mention of the scientific reports that I and others had given to them.

When that episode was shown, there were many people who posted words of support and commitment to the option of homeopathy in the healing choices. The Marketplace website seemed to edit and only release a certain number of the responses. People writing in support of homeopathy reported that their posts had not been published. People wrote in to CBC's producers, CBC's Ombudsman, and the homeopathic community bonded over the outrage of this slander. This fall, CBC plans to release another show about an aspect of homeopathic practice known as homeoprophylaxis. Homeoprophylaxis is the use of homeopathic remedies in anticipation for prevention of a specific health concern. The founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann writes about using the principles of homeoprophylaxis back in 1798 in his publication on Scarlet Fever called "The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever", in 'Lesser Writings' (B.Jain Publishing. New Delhi. P.369ff). http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/viewFile/360/407 using the homoeopathic remedy called Belladonna. He also refers to the ways to conduct homeoprophylaxis in the Aphorisms number 100, 101, 102 and 241 of his written guide to homeopathy known as 'The Organon' first published in 1810 (Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. 6th Edn. (Translated by William Boericke). New Delhi: B Jain Publishers, 1991). The most contemporary uses of homeoprophylaxis are based on the science conducted mostly by Dr. Isaac Golden http://www.homstudy.net/Research/ and Dr. G. Bracho. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839

Despite that currently there exists (and will continually be more of) quality research to demonstrate the effective use of homeopathy to address specific health concerns, CBC will attempt to convince you that there is none. Let me guide you to the BOX WIDGET on my blog https://homeopathiccures.wordpress.com

That is where you'll be able to access homeopathic experts advice or writings by homeopathic experts. In the words of Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expert), an expert is defined as "having or showing special skill or knowledge because of what you have been taught or what you have experienced". With this in mind, please QUESTION who CBC will refer to as 'experts' on topics of homeopathy.

Instead of truthfully facing the experts on homeopathy (myself and a known few of my colleagues) CBC Marketplace's approach to get information from us was to plant a fake client into our private practice. A few months later, an email was sent to me stating that they had done this and would I do an interview them?

Instead they chose a mysterious random bunch of people http://homeopathiccures.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/centre-for-inquiry.pdf...random people who don't know that you can NOT overdose on homeopathic remedies - and that this is a GOOD thing BUT that it is IRRESPONSIBLE to try to do your own 'experiments' on a form of medicine that you don't have a clue about.

Needless to say, I am NOT doing any kind of happy dance http://animalfactoftheday.blogspot.ca/2012/04/manakin-bird-can-moonwalk.html in anticipation of a new episode focussing on Homeoprophylaxis.

The tragic irony is that I have a feeling that CBC Marketplace's blatant show of ignorance will be apparent to most critical thinkers that are their audience and those people will either look for more information to satisfy their curiosity OR they will stand stronger in their commitment to choices for health care options for Canadians. In case this is the place you've come to for more information, let me assure you that maintaining the homeopathy as a choice made available to us is more important than our regular freedoms of choice as it has to do with the most important aspect of our existence because as they say, 'if we don't have our health, what do we have?' That is the essence of what drives most people to homeopathy. In ONE country alone there are over 100 million people using homeopathy (http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/status-of-homeopathy/)(India). Also keep in mind that the top two most debated topics on Wikipedia are Jesus and homeopathy If you've seen the CBC Marketplace's representation of homeopathy and would like to take part in some discussions about it, please keep in touch at https://www.facebook.com/AccessNaturalHealing/photos/a.119846306893.123640.10145471893/10152470442151894/?type=1&theater

Sincerely Yours in Homeopathy Elena Cecchetto (EL) info@accessnaturalhealing.com 604-568-4663 www.accessnaturalhealing.com © 2014 Elena Cecchetto

What you need to know about Ebola in BC

"Ebola in West Africa: looking back, moving forwardWHO/N. Alexander

22 September 2014 -- This week marks 6 months since WHO was notified of an outbreak of Ebola virus disease in Guinea. This outbreak has since evolved into the largest, most severe and most complex outbreak in the history of the disease. The 3 most-affected countries – Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone – face enormous challenges in stopping transmission and providing care for all patients. This series of essays reflects on the evolution of this unprecedented outbreak – the multiple challenges, small successes and despairing setbacks." last seen September 24th, 2014 from http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/ebola-6-months/en/

http://www.bccdc.ca/dis-cond/a-z/_e/Ebola/default.htm

"Symptoms of Ebola include fever, muscle pain, vomiting and internal bleeding. At least 60 per cent of infected patients die.

Henry said provincial and federal laws require health-care workers to immediately report suspected cases of Ebola, which are then reported to the World Health Organization.

There has never been a reported case in Canada." ~Vancouver Sun, July 30th, 2014

Keep checking these sites periodically. Also - keep in close contact with a Professional Homeopathic Practitioner (CCH, RSHom(NA)) and a very comprehensive emergency homeopathic remedy kit at home. Homeopathic remedies can act FAST in these types of DEEP fevers that are highly infectious when the remedies are well chosen.

Your Homeopath; CEASE Certified since 2012

Elena Cecchetto

101-1416 Commercial Drive
V5L 3X9 Vancouver
Canada
Phone: 604-568-4663
info@accessnaturalhealing.com
http://www.accessnaturalhealing.com

Bio

Elena Cecchetto is on the Advisory Board for the Council for Homeopathic Certification and on the founding board of Side by Side Homeopathy, who are helping people in the Downtown Eastside with their health concerns. Some of the common complaints she helps people to address include anxiety, PTSD, depression, migraines, digestion concerns, skin complaints and insomnia. As of 2012, El has been CEASE Therapy Certified; . In 2004 Elena Cecchetto was on the founding board of the Canadian Society of Homeopaths. In June of 2007 she presented at the BC Society of Homeopaths (BCSH) Case Conference. In September, 2009 the Health Action Network Society, requested a presentation of her "H.I.P." Homeopathic Program. She loves hearing back from new parents about getting the teething, colic, nursing issues, sleeping, coughing, and rashes successfully addressed with homeopathic care. Her focus on fertility and children have been supported by extra conferences with Dr. Sunil Anand and Louis Klein plus monthly case conference nights with Laurie Dack.

http://www.cease-therapy.com/make-appointment/practitioner/elenacecchetto

CEASE THERAPIST SINCE 2012

CEASE THERAPIST SINCE 2012