Editorial
by Richard Pitt
Scientific research is a significant cornerstone of our understanding of the human body and of life itself. In the last 200 years it has become ever more important in our developing knowledge of how things work. What used to be known simply through empiricism, experience, belief/faith and through an intuitive, yet profound connection to the world around us, we now rely on more academic, abstract analyses of the nature of things and our interaction with the world. This very much includes medical research, how the body works, and how medicines can be found to be effective and ideally safe.
Homeopathy, as one system of medicine, has also embarked on research to validate the experience of its theoretical principles and to explain the experience of the millions who benefit from homeopathy. It is also important as a means to communicate to other medical researchers and practitioners how homeopathy works and what conditions it is more likely to work on. For practitioners of homeopathy, it is another way to validate what we know to be true through our own experience. Homeopathy works.
However, even now in the 21st century, medical and scientific research can only explain so much. Many conventional drugs are given for conditions they weren’t tested for and which still cannot be explained scientifically. Empirically they work and that is enough if experience shows that they do not fundamentally harm. Consistent with the use of healing plants for millennia, no one knew why they worked, they simply did and that was enough. However, given the advances in science, then of course it’s in our interest to know more how and why they work as they do.
Much criticism has been put in the way of homeopathy, stating that there is no real proof that homeopathy works, which is a reason to invalidate it as a legitimate system of healing. Some people have gone as far to say that, even if research can be done that statistically can validate homeopathic action, it has to be discounted as, by default, homeopathy CANNOT work. In other words, it doesn’t matter what research is produced, it will never be enough.
One reason for the lack of research is simply money. It costs a lot of money to do many types of research and the lack of interest and economic motives to do research in homeopathy has meant comparatively little has been done. Also, the politics of healthcare and the influence of large pharmaceutical organizations in the field of research have also inhibited any serious interest in homeopathy. Another reason is that the method of homeopathic analysis, with its individualized approach, doesn’t fit well into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology, the gold standard of conventional research. This has also caused some problems in research design and analysis. Even the use of placebos has been revealed to be questionable when doing some homeopathic research. Homeopathic provings, which we do to explore the potential use of a homeopathic remedy can be done with placebos, to add greater objectivity to the process. However, often those who are taking placebo, and not the medicine will produce symptoms of the medicine. They will “prove” the remedy. Even the organizers of the proving can prove the remedy, even if they don’t know which medicine it is. This alone shows that when dealing with “subtle” energies of a homeopathic remedy, anyone in the “field of influence” of the experiment will be impacted by it.
This concept of the interconnection of everything, perhaps most eloquently explained in the book “Science and the Akashic Field,” leads us to question the relevance of the more abstract, reductionistic and mechanistic methodologies of conventional science and medicine.
However, given the challenges of homeopathy being accepted into mainstream science, we are beholden as a profession to do research and to explore more how the miracle of homeopathy works. We know it works and by that fact, we recognize that the implications of homeopathic action lead us into the world of philosophy and even religion, and yet, homeopathy is simply another system of medicine. The possible ramifications though are huge and can be even greater if through conventional methodology it can be further validated.
RCT’s are one obviously appropriate form of exploration of the therapeutic action of homeopathic action, as are forms of clinical outcome research which looks at the evidence of homeopathic medicines, which can be classified as “evidence based medicine”, the common term used to validate certain methodologies and which of late has been used to criticize homeopathy for lacking such evidence.
Research into “pure science” is another approach to understanding how homeopathy works. The implications of understanding how homeopathy works are so huge for science that it may be in the form of pure science, more than in clinical research or RCT’s that enough “proof” will be achieved and a tipping point in the acceptance of such a radical therapy such as homeopathy. The resistance in much of conventional research and medicine to the idea of homeopathy can mean that however much “evidence” is produced, it simply is never enough. It will only happen when the whole paradigm shifts and where the recognition of consciousness, of energy and of the interconnectedness of all things is seen as real and not being reduced to simply a “religious” belief. It will require a shift in the way science is done.
Therefore, it is appropriate that we touch on this subject and explore some of the research that has been done and that is being looked at today within the world of homeopathy. There are journals focused on homeopathic research like the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy, in the UK, and on whose website, much research is listed. There is an organization called the Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) in the UK that embarks on a variety of research and organizes conferences on research each year. India again is leading the world in areas of homeopathic research and a new government-sponsored body called AYUSH or the the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy, which is looking into how various forms of “natural medicines” can be used as part of the Indian healthcare systems. References are made in this journal to some of the research being done in India and which can be found on YouTube.
Also, on YouTube there is a fascinating interview done with Concepcion Campa Huergo, who worked with the Finlay Institute, the Cuban drug company that specialized in making vaccines and which chose to give in 2007 a homeopathically prepared nosode as a prophylaxis for leptospirosis to over 2 million people. She explained how they were inspired to do this after seeing doctors in Brazil giving a homeopathically prepared vaccine to people, alongside a conventional vaccine for meningitis, which showed increased efficacy. This led to the amazing trial with leptospirosis, showing that homeopathic prophylaxis can be such an important tool in public health policy worldwide. She joked that some of her colleagues weren’t thrilled as now the possible profits from conventional vaccine research were going to be lost. However, years later, the Finlay Institute doesn’t seem to be following up with more large homeoprophylaxis programs. It seems that the profits may have taken precedence over the health benefits and cost savings of homeopathy. Do check her talk out at https://www.youtube.comtatch?v=oyPvftE7Xh8.
I would like to thank Kathleen Scheible for co-editing this edition of the journal and helping compile all the articles with me. I would also like to thank all the authors and contributors of this edition. It is simply one sample of the possible research out there and we wanted to find a balance of the various types of research that have been done and lead people to look more into this area if it interests them. However, one can see how much can go into doing and writing up homeopathic research, so much gratitude goes to all who have contributed to this work. I would like to acknowledge the European Journal for Integrated Medicine who first published the article by Lionel Milgrom called “Living is easy with eyes closed . . .” on blinded RCTs and specific and non-specific effects of complex therapeutic interventions” and which is found in European Journal of Integrative Medicine 6 (2014) 552–559. Also Milgrom’s other article Homoeopathia! Quo vadis?” Rome 2015: The 2nd HRI International Conference on homeopathic research was first published in the British journal Homeopathy in Practice. My thanks to this journal for allowing us to republish the article.
We hope you enjoy this edition of the journal. Please spread the word about the journal and do consider contributing articles if you feel inspired.
