The Holistic Therapeutic Effect Principle
Homeopathic medicine is made from extremely small quantities of nanoparticles of substances extracted from plants, animals or minerals. The remedies are so diluted that, based on conventional chemistry, it is difficult to find any molecules of the original substance in the remedy. But as physicists know, it is not because we can’t quantify a given energy with today’s instruments that this presumed energy particle does not exist.
Two main axioms constitute the core principles of homeopathy. The “like cures like” principle holds that, if a substance causes a symptom (e.g. onion makes my nose run), then that substance can cure a disease that is characterised by a runny nose (e.g. hayfever or a common cold). The second principle assumes that the serial dilution process used for homeopathic remedies renders them not less but more potent (hence homeopaths call this process “potentiation”).
Both of these axioms fly in the face of maisntream conventional science. If they were true, much of what is learned in conventional physics and chemistry would be wrong. Homeopaths often say that we simply have not yet discovered how homeopathy works. In order to understand this apparent contradiction, we have to consider the complexities of the therapeutic response, which is by definition “holistic”. Whenever a patient or a group of patients receive a medical treatment and subsequently experience improvements, we automatically assume that the improvement was caused by the intervention. This logical fallacy can be misleading and has hindered progress in medicine for hundreds of years. Like the French Paradox study suggests, the reduction of CHD among the French could be due to wine, but it could also be the holistic result of other factors or frequencies, including those very vibes that emanate from French intestinal microbiota and sharing wine with friends and family over a sumptuous meal. For instance, regarding a disease treated by a homeopath, the condition could have improved on its own. Or the encounter between the therapist and the patient could have been therapeutic without any meaningful contribution from the treatment itself. Some homeopaths do emanate healing empathy and compassion. Or the patient could have had high expectations in the treatment that prompted a powerful placebo response. Or the patient self-administered some other treatments concomitantly or had a green smoothie as he or she was downing the homeopathic pellets. In other words, it is not the effect of the remedy per se, but the non-specific effect of the context in which it is given that oten benefits the patient.
From the point of view of Conventional science, the best way to resolve these complexities is to conduct clinical trials that differentiate between the specific and non-specific effects of a treatment. For most holistic treatment, this is not possible because of the principles of synergy and awareness. (Which i explained supra). But for some, like with homeopathy, it is possible to conduct double blind randomized clinical studies. In such studies, one group of patients receives the experimental treatment (e.g. a homeopathic therapy) and another group receives a placebo. If well designed, these studies expose the experimental group to the specific effect plus all the non-specific effects of an intervention, while the control group is exposed to precisely the same range and amount of non-specific effects but not to the specific effect of the treatment that is being tested. In this situation, any difference in outcome between the groups must be caused by the specific effects of the homeopathic remedy.
Over 200 clinical studies of homeopathic remedies are available to date. According to statistics, at least half of those may be flawed. It’s relatively easy to cherry pick and select those findings that one happens to like. To make a serious determination in terms of conventional science, we need to consider the totality of this evidence and weigh it according to its scientific rigour. This approach is called a systematic review. Over a dozen systematic reviews of homeopathy have been published. Almost uniformly, they come to the conclusion that homeopathic remedies are not different from placebo. (Source) In response, homeopaths will say either that the clinical trial was flawed, that mechanisms of action can’t be quantified and that their clinical experience is more important than the evidence from conventional clinical trials. And here we get at the core of the issue. If the World Health Organization and most medical doctors in France, Germany, India, Russia, inter alia use homeopathy, it’s because their patients get better as a result. Millions of them. Observational studies have shown this consistently (Source) Homeopaths insist that this amounts to evidence which is more relevant than that from clinical trials. In law, when someone gets better following some “intervention” and we can prove health improvements via biomarkers, we call this “evidence.” Just because we may today not be able to explain everything about homeopathy and holistic medicine, doest not mean this healing art should be ridiculed as most conventional doctors and Government officials do, using the law (coercion) instead of the free market and education to control and suppress this medicine. Furthermore, it’s easy to prove that allopathic medicine that these conventional State certified doctors use constitute one of the top causes if not the top cause to millions of innocent premature deaths and collective suffering. The way forward is open, transparent and holistic science, not opaque, biased analysis, cash-flow inspired ideology and rhetoric