Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.
Currently locked by: 18.222.184.0
Lock expires at: 2024/05/13 22:09 (7 min)
This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== POST-DEBATE QUESTIONS FROM DR. JOE SCHWARCZ TO DR. ANDRÉ SAINE ======

These questions were posted by Dr. Joe Schwarcz to Dr. André Saine as a follow-up on the [[en:misc:talk-saine-schwarcz|Debate held at McGill University]] on November 27, 2012.

===== QUESTION 1 =====
**Homeopaths claim that even after a substance is dissolved in water or alcohol and diluted to such an extent that there is not a single molecule of the original solute left, the solution still retains some memory of the solute. But this solution is then impregnated into a sugar pill and the water is evaporated. What then is left behind? And how does whatever is left behind have anything to do with healing?**

Homeopaths are actually not making such a claim, but have instead been reporting a series of very important experimental observations that are, first, sick people are sensitive to remedies that can produce a similar state as their sickness[(Hahnemann reported this phenomenon in great detail and with many observations in 1796 in his //Essay on a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative Powers of Drugs//. (In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 249-303.) He confirmed this phenomenon during the 1799 scarlet fever epidemic in an article entitled On the //Power of Small Doses of Medicine in General and of Belladonna in Particular//. (In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 385-389.))]; second, patients usually experience an initial aggravation when remedies are precisely prescribed to them according to this principle of similarity[(In a five month study in a large clinic, it was estimated that approximately 75% of patients with chronic diseases experienced an initial aggravation after taking the simillimum homeopathic remedy. (Paterakis S, Bachas I, Vithoulkas G. Statistical data on aggravation after the simillimum. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1977; 70: 267-269.)]; third, to avoid this initial aggravation, Hahnemann did what any logical physician would do, he diminished the dose.

At first, he used simple dilutions[(Already in 1786, four years before his experimentation with Peruvian bark, he was prescribing very small doses of mercury in his treatment of syphilitic patients compared to the much larger doses commonly prescribed by his contemporaries.)], and only many years later he began using serial succussed dilutions[(Even though Hahnemann made the experiment with Peruvian bark in 1790 and published the results of the first six years of his experiments by announcing a new therapeutic principle in 1796, he began using serial succussed dilutions (usually of the second or third attenuations) only in 1799 during the epidemic of scarlet fever. He would then mix one part of pulverized Opium with twenty parts of weak alcohol, would let this mixture stand in a cool place for a week and would shake it occasionally to "promote the solution." A drop of this tincture was mixed "intimately" with five hundred drops of diluted alcohol, and the whole was well shaken; and of this last diluted tincture, one drop was added to another five hundred drops of alcohol. Of this diluted tincture, one drop sufficed for a child of four years of age (particularly during stupefaction marked with convulsions), and two drops for one of ten years. For still younger children, one drop of this dilution was mixed with ten teaspoonfuls of water, and one, two, or more spoonfuls given. He wrote, "It is unnecessary to repeat these doses oftener than every four or eight hours, in some case more than every twenty-four hours, and sometime a couple of times during the whole fever, for which the more frequent or more rare occurrence these symptoms must be our guide." (Hahnemann S. Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Ferer. In //The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann//. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 375.))], a process he had previously used in chemistry[(After abandoning the practice of medicine because of its uncertainty, Hahnemann occupied himself mostly with chemistry and translation. He was soon recognized as an expert chemist. (To appreciate Hahnemann's work as a chemist see: Bradford TL. //Life and Letters of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann//. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1895: 29-42, and Kleiner) It was said that his accomplishments in chemistry "must be termed remarkable… and [that he can be] added to the list of versatile scientists side by side with Lavoisier, Benjamin Franklin and Pasteur." (Kleiner IS. Hahnemann as a chemist. Scientific Monthly 1938; 46: 450-454.) In his investigation on the fermentation of wine when put in contact with different gases, Hahnemann would fill vials with different gases and hermetically seal them under water. He would then succuss each vial up and down 30 times on a leather-bound book three times a day for a period of two months in order to increase the contact of the gases with the wine. (Hahnemann S. Ueber den Einfluss einiger Luftarten auf die Gährung des Weins. //Chemische Annalen für die Freunde der Naturlehre, Arzneygelahrtheit, Haushaltungskunst und Manufakturen// 1788; 1: 141-142.))] and which had been known at least since Paracelsus[(The following extracts are from the Scholiast’s (believed to be Paracelsus) commentaries to the third section of The Golden Treatise of Hermes, "The dead elements (which a spirit inhabits) are revived; the composed bodies tinge and alter, or are altered; and by a wonderful process they are made permanent. … The bodies of the metals are domiciles of their spirits . . . when their terrestrial substance is by degrees made thin, extended, and purified, the life and fire hitherto lying dormant is excited and made to appear. For the life which dwells in the metals is laid, as it were, asleep (in sense); nor can it exert its powers or show itself unless the bodies (that is, the sensible and vegetable media of life) be first dissolved and turned into their radical source. …This is the property of our medicine, into which the previous bodies of the spirit are reduced; that, at first, one part thereof shall tinge ten parts of an imperfect body, then one hundred, then a thousand, and so infinitely on by which the efficacy of the Creative Word is wonderfully evidenced; and by how much oftener the medicine is dissolved, by so much the more it increases in virtue; which otherwise, and without any more solution, would remain in its single or simple state of perfection. Here, then, is a celestial and divine fountain set open which no man is able to draw dry." (Cameron FT. Antiquity of the doctrine of dynamization of medicines by dilution. //Organon// 1878; 1: 280-281.) This accumulation in UMPs of the applied mechanical force is called "potentization" in homeopathy. )]; fourth, Hahnemann noticed that patients responded better and longer the higher the potency was, a fact that is confirmed daily by every practicing homeopath; and fifth, Hahnemann slowly pursued this upward process of serial dilution and succussion over the next forty years as he never stopped observing increasing benefit in the sick[(It is irrefutable from many authentic historical sources why Hahnemann first diminished the doses, and second how he proceeded very slowly through careful experimentation over many decades from prescribing simple dilutions to a progressive rise in serial trituration/succussion and dilutions, which has nothing to do at all with the skeptics' belief that Hahnemann "came to the conclusion, somehow nobody can explain how, //that less is more//.")]. To illustrate how slow this process of progressive rise in serial trituration/succussion and dilutions was, Hahnemann recommended prescribing Aurum metallicum in the first and second attenuations in 1820, the 12th in 1825, the 30th in 1835 and by 1840 he was consistently using the 200 centesimal potency[(In 1798, two years after Hahnemann published the results of his experiments on a new therapeutic principle, he was still prescribing crude doses of medicine, such as a half-dram dose of Peruvian bark tincture (Some Periodical and Hebdomadal Diseases. In //The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann//. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 341-344.), drop doses of tincture of Opium (Antidotes to Some Heroic Vegetable Substances. In //The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann//. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 322-329.), and grain doses of Arnica Montana and Ignatia amara. (Some Kinds of Continued and Remittent Fevers. In //The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann//. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 329-341.) By 1840, Hahnemann knew that a limit would unlikely ever be found to the efficacy of the higher potencies, as he kept increasing the potency of his remedies while observing increased remedial responses in the sick. Already in 1827, he suspected the unlimited potential of higher potencies when he wrote, "Medicinal substances are not dead masses in the ordinary sense of the term, on the contrary, their true essential nature is only dynamically spiritual—is pure force, which may be increased in potency by that most wonderful process of trituration (and succussion) according to the homeopathic method, //almost to an infinite degree//." (Hahnemann S. How Can Small Doses of Such Very Attenuated Medicine as Homoeopathy Employs Still Possess Great Power? In //The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann//. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 733.))].

In view of these //experimental facts//, Hahnemann logically assumed that //durable//, physical changes were occurring in the vehicles due to this process of serial trituration/succussion and dilutions, a phenomenon that can absolutely not be explained with the theory of Avogadro's limit[(Hahnemann referred to the doctrine of the divisibility of matter in 1810 (Hahnemann S. Organon of Medicine. Translated by Robert E. Dudgeon. Fifth American Edition. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1912, 301.), and said in 1829 that "there must be an end to the thing [divisibility of matter], it cannot go on to infinity." (Hahnemann S. Hahnemann's correspondence. //British Journal of Homoeopathy// 1847; 5: 398.) It is very unlikley that Hahnemann, who was an expert chemist, a great scholar and an accomplished scientisit, was not aware of Dalton's ideas on the atomic theory, which he presented between 1804 and 1810, and of the theory of Avogrado's limit, even though it would be determined much later. In 1811, Amadeo Avogadro proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature the gas. However, accurate determinations of Avogadro's number only became possible for the first time in 1910 after American physicist Robert Millikan measured the charge of an electron. The previous year, in 1909, French physicist Jean Perrin proposed the name of Avogadro to identify this fixed number of constituent particles in one mole of any given substance.)]. In 1825, he wrote, "By the //succussion// and //trituration// employed, a //change is effected in the mixture//, which is so incredibly great and so inconceivably curative, that this development of the spiritual power of medicines to such a height by means of the multiplied and continued //trituration// and //succussion// of a small portion of medicinal substance with ever more and more dry or fluid unmedicinal substances, deserves incontestably to be reckoned among the //greatest discoveries// of this age[(Hahnemann S. How Can Small Doses of Such Very Attenuated Medicine as Homoeopathy Employs Still Possess Great Power? In //The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann//. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 729-730.)]."

In the same article, Hahnemann responded to the skeptic's arguments about the implausibility of the higher attenuations as followed, "But there are various reasons why the skeptic ridicules these homeopathic attenuations. //First//, because he is ignorant that by means of such triturations the internal medicinal power is wonderfully developed, and is as it were liberated from its material bonds, so as to enable it to operate more penetratingly and more freely upon the human organism; //secondly//, because his purely arithmetical mind believes that it sees here only an instance of enormous subdivision, //a mere material division and diminution//, wherein every part must be less than the whole—as every child knows; but he does not observe, that in these spiritualizations of the internal medicinal power, the material receptacle of these natural forces, the palpable ponderable matter, is not to be taken into consideration at all; //thirdly//, because the skeptic has no experience relative to the action of preparations of such exalted medicinal power. If, then, he who pretends to be a seeker after truth will not search for it where it is to be found, namely, in //experience//, he will certainly fail to discover it; he will never find it by arithmetical calculations[(Ibid., 734.)]."

We could indeed speculate that beyond the twelfth centesimal dilution there isn't any molecule left from the original substance. However, no one can in fact prove the absence of any molecules of the original medicinal substances in ultra-molecular preparations (UMPs[(Ultra-molecular preparations or UMPs are solids or solutions that went through the process of serial trituration/succussion and dilutions particular to homeopathy (or are solids, usually sugars, that have been impregnated with one of these solutions), and which usually exceed in theory Avogadro's limit.)]), unless they are able to investigate them with methods capable of detecting the presence of the smallest concentrations of molecules. It was not until the 1950's and 1960's that scientists conducted experiments with radioisotopes, which permitted the detection of molecules of the original substances in UMPs of up to the 10<sup>-2,000</sup> (Korsakoff)[(Plazy M. //Recherche expérimentale moderne en homéopathie//. Angoulème: Éditions Coquemard, 1967, 13-15. )]. The presence of the original medicinal substances have since been detected by more refined spectrometric measurements and most recently by scientists at the Indian Institute of Technology, who have detected asymptotic amounts of nanoparticles and nanobubbles in UMPs of up to the 10<sup>-400</sup> [(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; 28: 15864-15875. )].

Also, measurable changes in the physico-chemical properties of UMPs began to appear in the 1940's with wavelength changes of the light passing through them[(Wurmser L, Loch P. Travail de recherche expérimentale sur les dilutions homéopathiques. //Congrès National de la Société Homéopathique de France// 1948: 37-48. )]. Different teams of scientists corroborated other measurable physico-chemical changes of UMPs in the early 1950's[(tephenson J. A review of investigations into the action of substances in dilutions greater than 1 X 10<sup>-24</sup>. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1955; 48: 327-335. )]. During the 1960's, it was found by high-resolution nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy that differences existed in the alcohol phase spectrographs of UMPs[(Boericke GW, Smith RB. Modern aspects of homeopathic research. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1965; 58: 158-167; 1966; 59: 263-272. )]. The advent of more refined spectroscopic equipment is now permitting scientists to push investigation further and discover many new, greatly unexpected physico-chemical properties of UMPs.[(Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. //Physica A// 2003; 323: 67–74. )] [(Elia V, Niccoli M. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. //Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry// 2004; 75: 815–836. )] [(Elia V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Tiezzi E. New physico-chemical properties of extremely dilute solutions. A conductivity study at 25°C in relation to ageing. //Journal of Solution Chemistry// 2008; 37: 85–96. )]

In 1984, Scofield reviewed much of the pre-Benveniste research on the physico-chemical properties of UMPs[(Scofield AM. Experimental research in homeopathy—a critical review. //British Homoeopathic Journal// 1984; 73: 161-180, 211-226.)]. We find that already in the 1960's, Barnard had developed the idea of the "memory of water," or in other words, something of the original substances is ingrained in the vehicles, which had in fact been considered by homeopaths since Hahnemann[(Barnard GP. Microdose paradox—a new concept. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1965; 58; 205-212.)].

Why, we can ask, is the outcome of this research on the physico-chemical properties of UMPs so unwelcomed by skeptics but, at the same time, so welcomed by homeopaths? First, skeptics tend to approach homeopathy from a purely theoretical point of view, as it had been done for twenty-five centuries previous to the advent of experimental medicine. They have thus not been at all able to appreciate the facts presented by homeopaths, as they don't even bother examining them. Their whole argumentation lies on the theory of Avogadro's limit, and on the placebo response. They have never yet argued against the principle of similia, which is the fundamental basis of homeopathy. They believe so strongly in their theoretical argument that they don't even take the trouble to enquire into what homeopathy really is, or to examine the enumerable, wonderful facts reported in the vast homeopathic literature, which they perfunctorily reject with dismissive arrogance. Their theoretical scheme takes precedence over any fact, thus sacrificing truth at the altar of prejudice. Unfortunately, things have not changed much since 1828 when Jean Paul Ritcher said that homeopathy was more "detested than examined[(The full quote of Richter is as follows in German, "//Hahnemann, dieser seltene Doppelkopf von Philosophie und Gelehrsamkeit//—dessen system am Ende den Ruin der gemeinen Receptier-köpfe nach sich ziehen muss, aber noch wenig von den Practikern angenommen und mehr verabscheut als untersucht ist." (Zerstreute Blätter, 2 Bd. S. 292.), and in its English translation, "Hahnemann, this rare combination of philosophy and learning, whose system must ultimately drag to destruction the vulgar receipt-crammed heads, but a system as yet little adopted by practitioners, and more detested than examined." (//Defence of Hahnemann and His Doctrines.// Second edition. London: H. Ballière, 1844: 67.))]."

On the other hand, homeopaths approach medicine as a natural science, which has as its basis the study of phenomena through observation. Observations reported by Hahnemann who was known to be an extremely meticulous and conscientious scientist have since been corroborated by hundreds of thousands of physicians and can be found throughout the vast homeopathic literature of more than 25,000 volumes.

The hypothesis of the memory of water is consistent with the series of experimental observations reported above. However, homeopaths are not claiming that there are no molecules left in UMPs, as insinuated by this question. We just couldn't have a clue until the 1950's when scientists began tracing radioisotopes in UMPs, which revealed the presence of the original substances in potencies up to the 1,000 centesimal Korsakoff. Scientists have so far detected //at least two very important phenomena in UMPs//, first, asymptotic amounts of nanoparticles and nanobubbles and, second, durable, physico-chemical changes of their vehicles.

In science, when a large body of evidence contradicts a theory it is time to change or adapt the theory, as Claude Bernard said so well in his //Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine//, "In these researches, I followed the principle of the experimental method that we have established, i.e., that, in the presence, of a well-noted new fact which contradicts a [prevailing] theory, instead of keeping the theory and abandoning the fact, I should keep and study the fact, and I hastened to give up the theory, … even when the theory [Avogadro's limit] is supported by great names and generally accepted[(Bernard C. //Introduction à l'Étude de la Médecine Expériementale//. Paris: J. B. Baillières et Fils, 1865: 287-288. (This passage can be found in Claude Bernard's //An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine//. Translated by Henry Copley Green. New York: Dover Publications, 1957, 164.) )]." Hahnemann preceded Claude Bernard in introducing the experimental method in medicine by more than a half of a century[(Hahnemann had clearly described the experimental method in //The Medicine of Experience// published in 1805 (Hahnemann S. Heilkunde der Erfahrung. //Journal der practischen Heilkunde// 1805; 22 (3); 5-99, or its English translation, in //The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann//. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 435-476.))] and pointed out in 1819 something very pertinent to our current discussion with skeptics, "How insignificant and ridiculous is mere theoretical skepticism in opposition to this unerring, infallible experimental proof[(Hahnemann S. //Organon der Heilkunst//. Zweite vermehrte Auflage. Dresden: Arnoldischen Buchlandlung, 1819: 363.)]!"

A very important factor that skeptics tend to not address in their calculation based on the theory of Avogadro's limit is the potential effects of the force of trituration and succussion applied in the preparation of UMPs. Rustum Roy and colleagues at the Materials Research Institute of Penn State University estimated that pressure shock waves generated by the process of trituration and succussion used in the preparation of UMPs can caused localized pressure inside the water, alcohol and sugar molecules to reach over 10,000-15,000 atmospheres (150,000-225,000 pounds per square inch), which is powerful enough to trigger fundamental changes in the properties of these vehicles[(Matthews R. The quantum elixir: water. It's the foundation of life on Earth. But what is it about H<sub>2</sub>O that gives it this amazing ability. //New Scientist// 2006; 190: 32-37. )], [(Roy R, Slawecki T, Rao ML. Water, water everywhere; and so little understood. Lecture June 19, 2009. 
» http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ajf_a9MRw.)].

Regarding the last part of this question, namely, "But this solution is then impregnated into a sugar pill and the water is evaporated. What then is left behind? And how does whatever is left behind have anything to do with healing?" When British astronomer Sir Patrick Moore wanted to emphasize that our comprehension of the universe is often quite incomplete, he would simply say, "We just don't know!" And this is exactly what the situation is at this point in time regarding this question, as the fundamental research on UMPs has so far been conducted //with solutions only//. To my knowledge, UMPs in solid forms have not yet been studied.

It is important here to point out here that fundamental research in homeopathy progress very slowly, as there are very few researchers studying this quite intriguing but extremely promising field of investigation, and also it is supported by minimal research grants. The worldwide budget for all the research in homeopathy is likely to be less than two million dollars per year. Funding usually comes from private foundations and homeopathic laboratories, and typical grants are of the order of $10,000 to $30,000. In comparison, funding for biomedical research in 2007 was over $100 billion for the US alone, which is about half of the total worldwide funding[(Dorsey ER, Roulet JD, Thompson JP, Reminick JI, Thai A, White-Stellato Z, Beck CA, George BP, Moses H. Financial anatomy of biomedical research, 2003–2008. JAMA 2010; 303: 137–143.)]. How ironic and sad it is that homeopathy, without any doubt the most important of all medical disciplines, receives less than 1/100,000 of all the moneys allocated in the world for bio-medical research!

===== QUESTION 2 =====
**If a patient is diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia would you recommend a homeopathic regimen or antibiotics?**

If patients diagnosed with pneumonia of any sort consult me, it is very likely that they are making an informed choice to be treated with homeopathy. After all, doesn't the ultimate choice of treatment belong to patients?

However, aside from the question of freedom of choice, it is an extremely pertinent question, because, first, pneumonia represents a public health problem of substantial magnitude, carries a significant mortality and has been associated in recent decades with an increasing morbidity; second, data clearly shows that homeopathy is the treatment of choice for patients with pneumonia of //all// types, and that innumerable numbers of lives would be saved daily if genuine homeopathy was used as the first line of treatment; and third, by using homeopathy, all the undesirable side-effects of antimicrobial therapy would be completely avoided.

This is such a vital subject that it obliges elaboration. The 2003 Pneumonia Fact Sheet of the American Lung Association reported, "In 1996 (latest data available), there were an estimated 4.8 million cases of pneumonia resulting in 54.6 million restricted-activity days and 31.5 million bed days [in the US alone][(Pneumonia Fact Sheet. //American Lung Association//. October 2003. )]." In 2005, pneumonia and influenza together represented a cost to the US economy of $40.2 billion[(Centers for Disease Control. MMWR //Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices// (ACIP), 2007; 56 (July): 1-54. )]. The //age-adjusted// mortality rate for pneumonia/influenza has steadily been rising over the last few decades, while pneumonia consistently accounts for the overwhelming majority of deaths between the two. It was 11.2 in 1979, 13.2 in 1998 and 15.7 per 100,000 persons per year in 2011[(Murphy Sl. Deaths: Final data for 1998. //National Vital Statistics Reports// 2000; 48 (11): 25. )], [(Hoyert DL, Xu J. Deaths: preliminary data for 2011. //National Vital Statistics Reports// 2012; 61 (6): 28.)]. In the past two decades, individuals older than 65 years of age have experienced a 20% increase in pneumonia-related hospitalizations with a concurrent increase in mortality[(Curns AT, Holman RC, Sejvar JJ, Owings MF, Schonberrger LB. Infectious disease hospitalizations among older adults in the United States from 1990 through 2002. //Archives of Internal Medicine// 2005; 165: 2514–20. )], [(Fry AM, Shay DK, Holman RC, Curns AT, Anderson LJ. Trends in hospitalizations for pneumonia among persons aged 65 years or older in the United States, 1988–2002. //JAMA// 2005; 294: 2712–9. )]. Microbes associated with pneumonia have become more resistant to antibiotics, making treatment much more difficult for allopathy, and multi-drug resistant bacteria are commonly endemic in ICU[(Safdar N, Crnich CJ, Maki DG. The pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: its relevance to developing effective strategies for prevention. //Respiratory Care// 2005; 50: 725-741. )]. It is also important to point out that there is no generally effective treatment in conventional medicine for most types of viral pneumonia[(Pneumonia Fact Sheet. //American Lung Association//. December 2012 
» http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/influenza/in-depth-resources/pneumonia-fact-sheet.htm)].

Pneumonia is one of the ten leading causes of death and the number one cause of death due to an infectious disease in the US. Untreated "lobar pneumonia has a mortality of about 30 percent," and "with antibiotics, fatalities are reduced to a varying extent, depending on the underlying condition of the patient, but in persons over 12 years the mortality is at least 18 percent and in immunocompromised persons it is much higher[(Kiple KF (ed.). //The Cambridge World History of Human Disease//. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 938-939. )]." Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a major cause of mortality at 14%[(Fine MJ, Smith MA, Carson CA, Mutha SS, Sankey SS, Weissfeld, LA; Kapoor WN. Meta-analysis of community-acquired pneumonia. //JAMA// 1996; 275: 134-141. )]. Mortality rate for older patients with CAP is around 30%. 72% of patients with CAP will require hospitalization[(Kothe H, Bauer T, Marre R, Suttorp N, Welte T, Dalhoff K, Comprehensive Network for Commnunity-Acquired Pneumonia study group. Outcome of community-acquired pneumonia: influence of age, residence status and antimicrobial treatment. //European Respiratory Journal// 2008; 32: 139–46. )], making pneumonia the second leading cause of hospitalization (after childbirth) in the US, with 1.2 million hospitalizations in 2006[(Ramirez JA, Anzueto AR. Changing needs of community-acquired pneumonia. //Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy// 2011; 66 Suppl 3: iii3–iii9. )]. For nursing-home acquired pneumonia, mortality rates reach 57%[(Janssens JP, Krause KH. Pneumonia in the very old. Lancet //Infectious Diseases// 2004; 4: 112–24. )]. If pneumonia develops in patients already hospitalized for other conditions, the mortality rates range between 30 to 70%[(McEachern R, Campbell GD. Hospital-acquired pneumonia: epidemiology, etiology, and treatment. //Infectious Disease Clinics of North America// 1998; 12: 761-779. )].

Pneumonia is the leading cause of death in children worldwide. An estimated 1.2 million children under the age of five years die every year from pneumonia—more than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined[(World Health Organization. Pneumonia. //Fact sheet N°331//: November 2012. )]. An estimated 1 in 3 children die in developing countries from or associated with acute respiratory tract infections[(Gareene M, Ronsmans C, Campbell H. The magnitude of mortality from acute respiratory infections in children under 5 years in developing countries. //World Health Statistics Quarterly// 1992; 45 (2-3): 180-191.)].

Throughout the nineteen and the first half of the twentieth centuries, which was before the advent of antibiotics, the average mortality for pneumonia for //hospitalized// patients was uniformly at about 30%. In 1912, Dr. William Osler wrote, "Pneumonia is one of the most fatal of all acute diseases, killing more than diphtheria, and outranking even consumption as a cause of death. The statistics at my clinic at the John Hopkins Hospital from 1889 to 1905 have been analyzed by Chatard. There were 658 cases with 200 deaths, a mortality of 30.4 percent. … Greenwood and Candy in a study of the pneumonia statistics at the London Hospital from 1854-1903, a total of 5,097 cases, conclude that the fatality of the disease has not appreciably changed during this period. In comparing the collected figures of these authors with those from other institutions, there is an extraordinary uniformity in the mortality rate[(Osler W. //The Principles and Practice of Medicine//. Eighth ed. New York and London: D. Appleton and Company, 1912: 96. )]." This uniformity of mortality during that period remained the same as well in //non-hospitalized// patients. In England and Wales, the annual death rates per million of pneumonia for children younger than 9 years old remained the same between 1848 and 1905[(Mercer AJ. Relative trends in mortality from related respiratory and airborne infectious diseases. //Population Studies// 1986; 40: 129-145. )]. During WWI, the great majority of the casualties of the US army were due to pneumonia. Major J. Harold Austin of the US medical corps reported, "About 65 percent of the deaths in the army in this country in 1917 were due to pneumonia[(Austin JH. A few observations upon pneumonia in the army in the United States during the winter of 1917-1918. //Transactions of the College of Physicians// 1918; 40: 192-197.)]."

For how long will our society tolerate such horrible statistics, while the best available method of treatment for patients with pneumonia is being repressed in many parts of world, as it is currently in Canada? How long will Canadian medical students tolerate the bias that they are fed in medical schools, instead of being taught the best that science has to offer, as it will now be illustrated? I conducted a literature search on the results obtained by homeopathy in patients with pneumonia. The final results have not yet been fully tabulated, but the data is overwhelmingly clear regarding the benefits societies would obtain by institutionalizing homeopathy. To provide an idea of this review and its conclusion, I will begin by listing here the first four chronological entries:

In 1829, Dr. J. F. Herrmann took over an Infantry Hospital in St. Petersburg where he homeopathically treated 71 patients with pneumonia without a single loss and without bloodletting[(Attomyr J. Musterung der homöopathischen Spitäler. //Archiv für die Homöopathischen Heilkunst// 1843; 20 (1): 137-138. )].

In 1843, Dr. Carl Heinrich Rosenberg reported collections of cases of pneumonia treated in allopathic and homeopathic hospitals in major cities in Europe. Allopaths treated 760 cases of pneumonia with 286 deaths, a mortality of 37.63 percent. Homeopaths treated 390 cases with 14 deaths, a mortality of 3.59 percent, or //more than a ten times// lower mortality[(Rosenberg CR. //Fortschritte und Leistungen der Homöopathie in und ausser Ungarn nebst einer Darstellung ihrer Grundsätze von ihrem gegenwärtigen wissenschaftlichen Standpunkte und Hinweisung auf die Vortheile, die daraus für Staat und Staatsbürger resultieren//. Leipzig: Verlag von Ludwig Schumann, 1843: 233-236. )]!

In 1846, Dr. Bosch wrote, "Out of one hundred cases of pneumonia, I have lost three; a man of fifty-eight who had long had a vomica [an abscess cavity] in the left lung, to which during the last year dropsical symptoms were added; a child of nine months afflicted with rickets, and a man of sixty-eight years[( Bosch. My experience in the treatment of pneumonia. //Homoeopathic Examiner// 1846; 1 (ns): 330-333. )]."

Between 1843 and 1848, Dr. Reiss reported having treated at the Sisters of Mercy Hospital in Linz, Austria 88 cases with pneumonia with one death, a mortality of 1.14 percent[(Reiss. Verzeichniss. //Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für Homöopathie// 1844; 1: 204-207. Verzeichniss. 1845; 2: 172-175. Ausweis. 1846; 2: 615-618. Ausweis. 1847; 3: 639-642. Ausweis. 1848; 4: 460-463. Ausweis. 1849; 4: 653-655. )].

I will now jump forward to 1928 and bypass close to one hundred years of accumulated data. We find here a survey conducted among homeopathic physicians in the US, which reported a death rate of 2.8 percent among 11,526 patients with pneumonia who were treated with homeopathy[(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.)].

The same year, in 1928, Drs. Alfred and Dayton Pulford of Toledo, Ohio wrote in their monograph on pneumonia:

<WRAP center round box 60%>
It has been stated, and we have every reason to believe truly, that fully 80 percent of all pneumonia cases would get well without any medical interference whatever, under proper nursing, so that any system or method of medical healing that cannot lower the death-rate to less than 20 percent would seem rather a menace than a blessing to pneumonia patients.

After treating 242 cases of pneumonia, of //all// types and degrees of severity, some coming directly from and others having been confirmed in the diagnosis by allopaths, with but 3 deaths, a rate of but 1.4 percent, we can hardly understand a fixed minimum death-rate of 25 percent, much less a maximum rate of 95 percent, in a disease as readily amenable to the proper remedy as is pneumonia. The death rate under the homeopathic //simillimum// should at no time exceed 5 percent, a higher rate would rather reflect on our ability[(Pulford A, Pulford D. //Homoeopathic Leaders in Pneumonia//. Published by the authors: Dayton, Ohio, 1928: 5. )].
</WRAP>


As the results obtained by homeopathy greatly depend of the ability of the physician to apply its principles to practice, the venerable Dr. P. P. Wells of Brooklyn, New York commented in 1885 that a death rate of even 2 or 3 percent is still too high under "right" homeopathy and gave the example of Dr. Reiss, who in his practice between 1843 to 1848 in the hospital of Linz, Austria, had a 1 percent mortality rate. He continues, "We believe this because we have the proof of this in our own experience. In a practice of this system which reaches forty-three and two-thirds years, which most of the time has been very large, and of a general character as to the diseases treated, of which, no doubt, pneumonia has made an average part, I have not lost one case[(Wells PP. Addresses, etc. //Homoeopathic Physician// 1885; 5: 414. )]." Pneumonia was quite common in the days of Dr. Wells, for the simple fact that many acute infectious diseases, common to his time and place, such as influenza, diphtheria, measles, rubella, whooping cough, typhus and typhoid fever, would end up in pneumonia. If we assume that he saw at the very minimum one patient a month with pneumonia during his career, he would have had no deaths in well over 500 cases.

Wells' success is corroborated by my own experience. In over 30 years of private practice that include over 180 cases with pneumonia, some of which were treated on their death bed[(About 10% of the patients I have treated with pneumonia were in a critical state.)], many having failed under allopathy, there has not been a single death under homeopathic treatment. It is in fact hard to imagine a person dying of pneumonia with a physician experienced in genuine homeopathy at the bedside, even in the worst and most hopeless circumstances, whether it is in an infant in the last stage of viral pneumonia in an ICU, a centenarian in a very weakened state when all hopes are given up, a wasted and incapacitated middle-age man with a four-year refractory Aspergillus pneumonia, a patient with advanced lung cancer, or a comatose patient in the last stage of AIDS. However, a great number of people will continue to unnecessarily die of pneumonia until the most efficacious treatment in existence is requested by the tired victims of the politics of medicine. Such sterling results obtained with genuine homeopathy in patients with pneumonia point out the invaluableness of this system of medicine, in which statistics become basically useless, as Sir Ernest Rutherford remarked, "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."

It is important to point out that skeptics like Oliver Wendell Holmes[(Holmes OW. Homoeopathy, and Its Kindred Delusions. In //Currents and Counter-Currents in Medical Science: With Other Addresses and Essays.// Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1861.)] have been very influential in their campaign to denigrate homeopathy and have greatly slowed down the progress of science and limited its potential benefits to reach suffering humanity. Contrary to general expectations, skeptics approach homeopathy with unwavering conviction instead of the completely unbiased mind required in science. The good news however is that facts are more stubborn than prejudices; at the end, truth shall prevail; and as Lincoln said so well, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Utter ignorance[(A clear example of the utter ignorance displayed by skeptics is seen in the 2005 Shang et al. meta-analysis published in the Lancet and its accompanying article calling for the end of homeopathy. The most fundamental flaw of this meta-analysis is that six of the eight studies retained for the final analysis comparing homeopathy to allopathy were not about homeopathy, as I explained in the debate. It is extremely doubtful whetehr Shang et al. and the editors of Lancet were at all aware that "without the most minute individualization, homeopathy is not conceivable." (Hahnemann S. //Organon of Medicine.// Translated by William Boericke. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1922: 34.) )], lack of scholarship, contradictions[(A blattant example of contradictions commonly found in the arguments of skeptics was seen during the debate when Joe Schwarcz said, "Well, this, I think, does not stand up to the rigor of what we call science-based medicine, which has four basic pillars. Of course we rely on peer-review. We do rely on plausibility because we have a large fountain of scientific knowledge upon which we can stand and gaze out at the world and judge to see what makes sense and what doesn't. And, of course, experience plays a role, as does critical thinking. But, really, the cornerstones are peer review and plausibility." Yet, he stated, "I'm not going to get into the battle of papers, because there are 6,500 peer reviewed journals in the world. Every minute of every day there are four new peer reviewed publications that come out. They can be put on a bell curve, like everything else in the world is. Some are excellent, some are terrible; most are mediocre. So, it is possible to take a look and cherry pick and show anything you want with the literature. That's why we don't get into the paper vs. paper." When you insist on twisting the truth around you have to be quite adroit throughout your logic and arguments. You can't learn what genuine homeopathy is not (great medicine or mere placebo) from the gobbledygook of the skeptics, where everything is turned upside down. Confusion is what you are generally left with. However, when you turn to the authentic sources about the development and clinical outcome of homeopathy, it is like night and day. The discourse here is logic, consistent and scientific throughout, and the results are most admirable.)], misinformation[(How can skeptics bring light to this scientific question that is homeopathy when they don't approach it with a purely scientific mind? Or when they have not even read the basic works of homeopathy? There has been a number of honest scientists, like Constantine Hering, Benjamin Joslin or David Reilly, who approached homeopathy in order to discredit it from a scientific point of view. However, they first informed themselves about the fundamental principles of homeopathy and its basic experimental facts. When they tried to reproduce the experiments "carefully and accurately," as Hahnemann clearly requested in his //Nota Bene for my Reviewers//, they found out, despite their utter disbelief, that Hahnemann had been right at every step of the way. However, this has never been the case with skeptics who characteristically base their arguments, not on accurate experiments and pertinent facts, but on mere assumptions. Once carefully analyzed, how can arguments brought forward by skeptics have any credibility before an unbiased scientific community? This debate has always came down to facts versus assumptions, as pointed out by Hahnemann in 1825 in his //Information for the Truth Seeker//, "If the supposed seeker after truth is not willing to seek truth where it is to be found, //namely in experience//, then he may leave it undiscovered; he cannot find it in the multiplication tables." (Hahnemann S. Belehrung für den Wahrheitssucher in Nr. 165 d. Bl. //Allgemeiner Anzeiger der Deutschen// 1825; 2 (194): 2387-2392.) )], gross distortions of historical facts[(Recent examples of gross distortions of historical facts that were displayed during the debate at McGill University are how Hahnemann "kept taking bigger and bigger doses [of Peruvian bark tincture] to see what would happen. And he took these doses and, eventually, he developed a fever," or how Hahnemann discovered the process of succussion, "Well, one day he made a house call. And he answered this house call in a horse-drawn carriage…", or how Hahnemann "gave arsenic in increasing doses to friends, family members et cetera and cause symptoms, for example, in this case, gastric pain, vomiting, and diarrhea," and "lost some friends and relatives along the way." 
» http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2uBBU4XT7Y&feature=youtu.be 
or for the unabridged transcription of the debate see: » http://www.legatum.sk/en:misc:talk-saine-schwarcz)], sophistries[(Rejection of the extraordinary facts presented by homeopathy with a theoretical argument is a good example of the most blattant sophistry used by skeptics.)] and far-fetched analogies[(As a recent example of far-fetched analogies, Dr. Amir Raz said during the recent debate held at McGill University, "For someone who knows the literature, it's like science fiction versus reality." It would be really interesting to know how much of the homeopathic literature he has actually read. Skeptics typically respond to facts presented to them by pointing out their impossibility without presenting any precise, concrete, sustanable facts or accurate experimentation as counter arguments, as if skeptics are saying, "take my word for it, as I am after all a well-known professor at a famous university.")] displayed by skeptics about homeopathy will in due time be fully uncovered, and, unleashed, medical science will finally be able to continue its march forward without the skeptics' spokes in its wheels. During the time of Hahnemann literally hundreds of books and pamphlets and even a journal[(Three volumes of //Antihomöopathisches Archiv// were published in Hamburg between 1834-1838. )] and an anti-Organon[(Heinroth, JCA. //Anti-Organon oder Das irrige der Hahnemannischen Lehre im Organon der Heilkunst//. Leipzig: C. H. F. Hartmann, 1 8 2 5.)] were published by skeptics. Despite these intensive campaigns of denigration, homeopathy has continued its march forward, slowly but surely. What is true and good will remain true and good, despite what well-known communicators and supposedly men of science write against it. It is interesting to note how unwavering is the skeptics' stance despite mounts of evidence. This phenomenon seems to not be so uncommon in science as Max Planck once remarked, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Hahnemann in its turn remarked that it is impossible without virtue to be a true man of science.

Reports similar to Wells' experience described above are commonplaces in the homeopathic literature. However, in the face of such spectacular statistics, one wonders whether any allopath of high reputation has had the courage to openly try homeopathy in a public institution and publicly report in details the results of his experiments in the treatment of patients with pneumonia. Well, at least one allopath did it. Between 1847 and 1849, Dr. Jean-Paul Tessier, "one of the distinguished practitioners of medicine in Paris," conducted at the St. Marguerite Hospital experiments to investigate homeopathy in the treatment of patients with cholera and pneumonia[(Hempel CJ. Preface. In //Clinical Remarks Concerning the Homoeopathic Treatment of Pneumonia: Preceded by a Retrospective View of the Alleopathic Material Medica, and an Explanation of the Homoeopathic Law of Cure//. By Jean-Paul Tessier, M. D., //Physician to the Hospital Sainte-Marguerite in Paris//. Translated by Charles J. Hempel, M. D. New York: William Radde, 1855: iii. )]. He wrote that he presented himself "neither as a partisan or opponent of homeopathy but as a scientist guarding himself against the misguiding bias of blind passion," and he will "endeavor to strictly adhere to the legitimate demands of a scientific inquiry[(Tessier JP. //Clinical Remarks Concerning the Homoeopathic Treatment of Pneumonia: Preceded by a Retrospective View of the Alleopathic Material Medica, and an Explanation of the Homoeopathic Law of Cure//. Translated by Charles J. Hempel, M. D. New York: William Radde, 1855: vi. )]."

He choose pneumonia to conduct his first trial, as he said, "Pneumonia is a disease of frequent occurrence, acute, serious, with well-defined characteristic symptoms; it is on this account that I have selected it as the first example of an application of Hahnemann's method to the treatment of disease. No physician will dispute either the frequency or the acute nature of pneumonia; … the signs by which this disease is recognized, are generally very striking, and easily distinguished; and if I admit that we might be mistaken on a first examination I make all the concessions that can be legitimately claimed. No physician can possibly mistake a case of pneumonia when he sees his patient every morning and evening, auscultates him carefully, and watches all the evolutions of the disease with the intention of determining its true character(68)."

However, instead of applying the principles of homeopathy as they were clearly spelled out by Hahnemann, he applied his own version by prescribing for localized pathologies with alternation of remedies in very low potencies. Despite these three major departures from the practical rules of homeopathy, he was still able to observe a significant positive outcome in both patients with pneumonia and cholera compared to all other methods of treatment used in the hospital and more particularly to the ones used during the cholera epidemics of 1832 and 1849.

Regarding the results obtained in patients with pneumonia in particular, he reported 40 detailed cases with 37 recoveries and 3 deaths, a mortality rate of 7.5%. This means, by simply switching halfway between allopathy to homeopathy, //he was able to save 23 more lives out of 100 patients// compared to the constancy of 30% of his previous allopathic practice. It is a strange fact about human behavior that this incredible, well-publicized reduction in mortality was not followed, at the very least, by more trials or even, until proven otherwise, by institutionalization of homeopathy in the St. Marguerite Hospital or in every other hospital worldwide. Instead, when Tessier presented his results before the Academy in Paris he aroused a storm of protest. It again confirms how prejudice tends to be such a stubborn thing. Luckily for humanity, facts are even more stubborn.

Regarding antimicrobial therapy, homeopathic physicians have traditionally never been against their use but have been opposed to their undesirable side-effects, which include the permanent disruption of the flora of the body, increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections, development of more resistant strains of microbes, and pollution of our streams and waterways and poisoning of the body of life therein. It is also noteworthy to mention two extra advantages of being treated with homeopathy for patients with pneumonia above and beyond antimicrobial therapy, which are that with homeopathy we witness an improvement of the health of the person on all levels, and a decreased susceptibility to develop pneumonia in particular and of being sick in general.
===== References =====

~~REFNOTES~~

====== DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR ======

^ Source: | http://www.homeopathy.ca/debates_2012-11-27_FromDrSchawrtz-to-DrSaine.shtml |
^ Description: | Questions posted by Dr. Joe Schwarcz to Dr. André Saine as a follow-up on the [[en:misc:talk-saine-schwarcz|Debate held at McGill University]] on November 27, 2012.  |
^ Year: | 2013 |
^ Editing: | errors only; interlinks; formatting |
^ Attribution: | Legatum Homeopathicum |
Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Page locked

Page Tools
