As an acupuncturist and herbalist, many people assume that I also practice and support homeopathy. In fact, I’ve noticed that many people equate herbology with homeopathy. I’ve certainly learned much about homeopathy and talked with many homeopaths over the years of my education. I’ve even tried homeopathy a couple of times. One of my teachers, who practiced homeopathy and radionics, liked to use this quote from Voltaire: “The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while Nature cures the disease.” Unfortunately, that’s very close to the truth for many alternative therapies. To be more accurate, it could be said that the art of many alternative healthcare providers, especially homeopaths, consists of profiting from the patient while they hope nature will cure the disease.

If the basic principles and theories of homeopathy were to be supported by good quality evidence, I would be very supportive and would learn, use, promote, and sell homeopathy. However, with my understanding of homeopathy’s history, theories, and research, it would go against my ethics to prescribe or sell homeopathic remedies. Please recall that as an acupuncturist/herbalist with one of the most comprehensive online herbal pharmacies, I sell everything from Horny Goat Weed to “Peaceful Spirit” tablets. I am most definitely not a mouthpiece for the AMA or mainstream medicine. That doesn’t mean, however, that I ignore science or common sense.

You can find many brief overviews of homeopathic history online. Here’s my condensed version: Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) was a German physician upset with the medical practices of his time, which included many toxic substances (such as mercury) and unsanitary procedures (including bleeding and many unnecessary amputations) which led to much pain and premature death. Without the knowledge of bacteria, viruses, or nutritional science, Hahnemann came up with the idea that most disease was due to a suppressed “itch” which he called “psora.” He theorized that mildly stimulating the body’s healing force was all that was needed to cure many diseases. He felt that the symptoms of a disease were the signs of the body’s struggle, and that by encouraging the expression of those symptoms, the body would prevail over the psora sooner. If the symptoms were suppressed with other herbs or drugs, it would push the disease deeper into the body where it would later manifest as a more serious condition. The first law of homeopathy is the “Law of Similars” which is that “like cures like.” To a homeopath, this means that a substance that can cause symptoms similar to those seen in a disease will cure that disease if given in a homeopathic dose. The second theory is “the Law of Infinitesimals” which states that a substance is more potent the more it is diluted. The third law of homeopathy varies between the “Law of Single Dose” which states that one substance prepared homeopathically will treat all aspects of the person and disease and the “Law of Chronic Disease”, which states that any herb or drug, other than a homeopathic remedy, taken for a disease will make the disease worse.

Homeopathy fails to meet my definition of natural medicine. Natural medicine follows the laws of nature. One of the laws of nature is that the effects of a drug are stronger the more there is of it. This is contrary to the “Law of Inifinitesimals.” While there are many substances, such as Vitamin A, which are toxic in large amounts and helpful in small amounts, the small amounts are still measurable. Chemistry a natural science, and most useful herbs have been studied via chemistry and shown to be natural drug factories which make active molecules. Artemisinin is one such substance, found in the Chinese herb Qing Hao (Artemisia annua). It is now regarded as one of the most potent anti-malarial chemicals. Unfortunately, it is more expensive than many of the other therapies, so is underused in areas hard hit by malaria.


The Case of Vertigoheel

Modern proponents of homeopathy often state that research has now confirmed that homeopathy works better than a placebo for many conditions. I have been searching for these and other supporting studies regarding homeopathy. One of the most hopeful studies I’ve found concerns a remedy from Heel, Inc. called Vertigoheel. It was tested in Germany for vertigo and found to be as effective as the drug betahistine. This was published in an AMA medical journal and hailed as some of the best supportive evidence of homeopathy’s validity. In wanting more complete information, I found some interesting bits that led to me being more confused and unsure, and certainly feeling that there is some more research to be done to confirm any of the ideas and uses of homeopathy.

Here’s the situation with the Vertigoheel study, which you can easily check for yourself using any large search engine, such as Google. Vertigoheel is a liquid homeopathic preparation that comes in a 100 ml bottle (there are approximately 30 ml to 1 ounce, so this is just over 3 oz.). The dose is 15 drops 3x/day, below the tongue. 15 drops is approximately 1 ml, and can be hard to count, as it has to be done by feeling the drops fall under the tongue. It is about 1 dropper-full from a standard tincture dropper. The stated active ingredients of Vertigoheel are Ambra grisea D6, Anamirta cocculus D4, Conium maculatum D3, Petroleum rectificatum D8. Yes, the last ingredient is Petroleum! Don’t worry, as the D8 number indicates it is diluted through 8 cycles so there are probably no detectable molecules of petroleum left. The first thing to notice is that this formula doesn’t adhere to the law of the single remedy, so it can’t be considered “Classical Homeopathy.” The inclusion of rectified petroleum removes it from the “all natural” school as well. More importantly, the liquid that this formula is in is 35% alcohol! That is 70 proof, about the same as most vodka and whiskey. Consider this: the active ingredients are not present in any quantities that can be detected in a modern laboratory (which can look at DNA and individual molecules). They haven’t even been energetically detected by using a pendulum or kinesiology in any controlled tests I know of (please contact me if you know of any). The basic principle of homeopathy is that a substance is more potent the more it is diluted. So in theory, a fully active dose of Vertigoheel should be able to be taken as 1 drop out of the bottle (or even less, if possible), not as 15 drops. In fact, 1 drop should be more potent than 15 drops! The same principle applies to the milk sugar (lactose) pills used in homeopathy—there is no reason to take a whole vial of 200+ lactose pills if the basic principle of homeopathy is that an infinitesimal dose is more effective than a larger dose. The very highly diluted Oscillococcinum flu remedy made from duck liver and heart (200CK, meaning it would take more milk sugar pills than the size of the earth to have one molecule of fermented duck liver in it) costs $1 per plastic tube of 200+ pills (about 1200 mg of milk sugar). The instructions say to take the whole tube as a dose. There is no research backing up this dose—it is pure profiteering from what I can tell. Either that or there may be an adulterating ingredient which necessitates the large dose of sugar. It certainly doesn’t take 200 pills to get the ‘energy’ of the duck liver.

Inspired by writing this article, I decided to do some of my own research. I largely quit drinking alcohol for the New Year, and have enjoyed the financial savings and extra mental productivity not drinking has given me. However, I still have a well-stocked liquor cabinet. So about 15 minutes ago I took a dropper and put 15 drops of Irish Whisky under my tongue. It was about 12:30 (before lunch). It was definitely enough to taste. I now have a warm sensation in my stomach and chest, and also can feel a change under my tongue—I’m still secreting more saliva, and it feels like the veins under my tongue are dilated. In fact, my lungs feel a bit dilated as well, and I have a slight perception shift, neither unpleasant nor unfamiliar. I am a pretty sensitive person when it comes to herbs and alcohol, but I can have a few drinks and still hold a conversation. These results are from just 15 drops of whiskey—no homeopathic petroleum (I hope) was in my bottle. This is the first problem with the study—there is actually enough alcohol to have a tangible effect on the circulation to the head.

Here are the instructions from a website selling Vertigoheel—I suspect this is directly from the label:

Adults: In general, 15-20 drops 3 times daily. In sporadic dizziness and nausea initially 10 drops every 15 minutes, or to be used as directed by a homeopathic practitioner or physician.

Contains 35 vol.-% alcohol.

From how I feel now, if I were to take 10 every 15 minutes (especially if on an empty stomach), I would definitely be “under the influence” after an hour. I’m surprised that homeopaths aren’t concerned that the alcohol will have a significant altering effect on the treatment, especially given their theory that smaller doses can be more potent than large doses.

Getting back to the study, there was no placebo group and no alcohol-only group. For all we know from this study, it may be determined that tiny doses of alcohol can effectively treat vertigo. It is ridiculous to state that this study validates the homeopathic ingredients in Vertigoheel. It would take another (carefully controlled) study comparing Vertigoheel to pure alcohol to begin to shed light on what is really producing an effect.

Another issue with the study is that 70% of the participants had never been treated for vertigo before and that patients with chronic vertigo (lasting over 6 months) who had used some sort of treatment in the month prior to the study’s start were disqualified. 90% of the participants had no known cause of the vertigo, though they were reportedly screened for tumors and drug use.

However, there was no control group of patients who didn’t receive any treatment. Thus, it is impossible to tell what the symptoms of vertigo would have done in either group without any treatment at all. Since most of these patients hadn’t ever been treated for vertigo before and most chronic cases of vertigo were excluded, it is likely that many of these patients would have experienced a natural resolution to their vertigo over the period of six weeks. “Entertaining the patient while nature cures the disease” indeed.

Oh no, it just got worse. I didn’t know anything about betahistine, the drug that Vertigoheel was compared to in the study. Searching for it brought up many things, including this historical tidbit from the FDA’s main site (www.fda.gov/cder/fdama/pclist.pdf):

Betahistine dihydrochloride.
Betahistine dihydrochloride is a
chemically well characterized histamine
analog. Formerly marketed as Serc
tablets, betahistine dihydrochloride was
approved by FDA to treat the symptoms
of vertigo in patients with Meniere’s
disease. In 1970, however, FDA
withdrew approval of the new drug
application for Serc tablets because they
were found to lack substantial evidence
of effectiveness for this approved
indication (see 35 FR 17563, November
14, 1970). FDA will consult with the
Pharmacy Compounding Advisory
Committee at a future meeting about
whether to include betahistine
dihydrochloride on the bulk drugs list
and will address the effect of its
withdrawal from the market at that time

That’s right: in 1970 the FDA withdrew approval for betahistine because there was a lack of evidence that it could treat vertigo better than a placebo. Dr. Timothy Hain, M.D. has used betahistine in the treatment of Meniere’s, yet writes in an article on it:

“Serc was again reviewed by the FDA in June of 1999… Essentially, the conclusion seems to be that there is no evidence that it is harmful, but also little evidence that it has any therapeutic effect. It thus is similar in status to an inert substance. Serc is not sold through ordinary US pharmacy chains but it can be obtained through US compounding pharmacies, with a prescription.” (http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/treatment/serc.html)

However, adding to the fray is at least one study (done in Italy) that does show positive effects for vertigo from Meniere’s disease using betahistine compared to placebo. One study is usually not enough to draw conclusions from. Here is a study of studies of betahistine that concludes that there aren’t enough good studies done to claim that it has any effect greater than placebo:

Betahistine for Meniere's disease or syndrome.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(1):CD001873 (ISSN: 1469-493X)

James AL; Burton MJ
ENT Department, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA.

BACKGROUND: Meniere's disease is characterised by attacks of hearing loss, tinnitus and disabling vertigo. Betahistine is used by many people to reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks but there is conflicting evidence relating to its effects. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of betahistine in people with Meniere's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library issue 4,1999), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 1999), EMBASE (January 1985 to December 1999) and Index Medicus (1962 to 1966). We checked reference lists of articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies for further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies of betahistine versus placebo in Meniere's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for further information. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials involving 162 patients were included. No trial met the highest quality standard set by the review because of inadequate diagnostic criteria or methods, and none assessed the effect of betahistine on vertigo adequately. Most trials suggested a reduction of vertigo with betahistine and some suggested a reduction in tinnitus but all these effects may have been caused by bias in the methods. One trial with good methods showed no effect of betahistine on tinnitus compared with placebo in 35 patients. None of the trials showed any effect of betahistine on hearing loss. No adverse effects were found with betahistine. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to say whether betahistine has any effect on Meniere's disease.

So there you have it: taking a dropper of 70 proof alcohol under the tongue three times a day has about the same effect on strange cases of dizziness as a controversial drug which many studies have found to be no better than placebo.

Britain has been much more accepting of homeopathy than the United States. It is only fair to look at some of the research published in the British Homeopathy Journal to see what sorts of research and evidence is being published. Here is one such study:

--

Br Homeopath J. 2000 Jan;89(1):4-7
Homeopathic treatment of migraine: a double blind, placebo controlled trial of 68 patients

Straumsheim P, Borchgrevink C, Mowinckel P, Kierulf H, Hafslund O.

Arena Medisinske Senter, Sognsveien, Oslo, Norway.

To evaluate the efficacy of homeopathy in preventing migraine attacks and accompanying symptoms, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted. There was a one-month registration period without treatment, followed by four months individualised homeopathic treatment or identical placebo. Patients were stratified for common or classical migraine. Seventy-three patients were randomised, 68 completed the trial. Baseline values were similar in the two groups. Both the homeopathy and placebo groups had reduction in attack frequency, pain intensity and drug consumption, with a statistically non-significant difference favouring homeopathy. Migraine diaries showed no difference between groups. The neurologists' trial evaluation showed a statistically significant reduction in attack frequency in the homeopathy group (P= 0.04) and non-statistically significant trends in favour of homeopathy for pain intensity and overall evaluation. Further research, with improved trial design, on the possible role of homeopathy in migraine prophylaxis is justified.

Yes, the conclusion here was that both the homeopathic group and the placebo group improved during this study, and that the differences between the two groups weren’t significant.

Homeopathy meets nutritional science

Pellagra, which is a rare disease today, is a disease with the symptoms of rough scaly skin, mental confusion/hallucinations, diarrhea, and mucous membrane inflammation. It was noted as common in peasants who relied upon corn as a main staple. Upon further research, it was found that pellagra results from either a niacin or tryptophan deficiency. Corn contains niacin, but it is bound up and insoluble unless the corn is processed with alkali lime (as in most tortillas). Making sure that people eat enough niacin (a B-vitamin) through a varied diet has made pellagra very rare. It can occur in some alcoholics and people with malabsorption syndromes.

The treatment and cure of pellagra was a great victory for nutritional science. Through chemical research, much was discovered about this disease and the need for dietary variety. It is also very interesting that processing and cooking corn with alkali lime makes the niacin more available—another example of how raw foods theory falls short of reality.

What would the homeopathic approach have been to pellagra? There would be 2 main approaches. If a homeopath had known about the connection between corn and the pellagra symptoms, a diluted preparation of corn (so dilute there was no molecular trace of corn left) could have been made and mixed with alcohol or milk sugar. In homeopathic theory, this should have helped the body heal from the “psora” or itch that was causing the rough skin, mental confusion, and diarrhea. Alternatively, another substance could have been found which in ordinary doses would cause rough skin, diarrhea, and mental confusion. Let’s pretend that mercury would do these things (it’s close). A homeopathic preparation of mercury would have been made to treat the patients. In both cases, according to homeopathic theory and practice, no changes would have been made in the diets of the patients. No nutritional supplementation would have been made. In fact, if Hahnemann were transported into the future and saw a medical doctor giving a niacin pill to a pellagra patient, he would have warned that niacin was suppressing the symptoms and would cause a more chronic diseased state later in life.

Scurvy would have had a similar treatment with homeopathic medicine. A substance that cause gum bleeding, tooth loosening, skin bumps, and joint pain would have been looked for and then prepared in miniscule doses to treat the symptoms of scurvy. Vitamin C wasn’t isolated and synthesized until 1932. While Vitamin C pills today are usually synthetically made, using them to treat scurvy seems much more natural and sensible than using a homeopathic.

When I started writing about pellagra and scurvy, I was making hypothetical examples—I didn’t think any homeopaths sought to treat scurvy and pellagra with homeopathic remedies (especially not now). With a quick search, however, I found that there is one homeopathic remedy which is said to treat both conditions! Here it is, straight from http://www.hpathy.com/clinical/skin_diseases_homeopathy.asp:

(b.) Bovista:

Miasm: Sycosis (1) + Psora (1)

Urticaria on excitement, with rheumatic lameness, palpitation and diarrhoea. Itching on getting warm. Eczema, moist; formation of thick crusts. Pimples cover the entire body. Pimples cover the entire body; scurvy; herpetic eruptions. Pruritis ani. Urticaria on waking in the morning, worse from bathing. Blunt instruments leave deep impression on the skin. Pellagra.
---
It sounded like Bovista was made from a cow, but it is a homeopathic preparation from a puffball fungus. This fungus is actually called Scleroderma bovista. Scleroderma means hard-skinned, and that is why it came to be used as a treatment for pellagra, eczema, scurvy and other skin conditions. This is the doctrine of signatures once again. It would be fabulous for me (and others interested in alternative medicine, metaphysics, etc.) if these theories worked and were supported by studies. But there are none on Bovista—it is just an old idea that has hung around in dusty books despite modern advances such as nutritional science. In this case, nutritional science is the real natural medicine. Homeopathy is an attempt at sympathetic magic which is contrary to the laws of nature.

Speaking of metaphysics and magic, many homeopaths use dowsing with pendulums (or sci-fi radionics machinese, etc.) to prescribe homeopathic remedies. I was glad to see a study from a homeopathic hospital in London which tested the ability of homeopaths to identify an active homeopathic remedy using a pendulum. Here is the abstract, again from the great resource pubmed.org:

1: J R Soc Med. 2002 Apr;95(4):189-91.

Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines by dowsing? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

McCarney R, Fisher P, Spink F, Flint G, van Haselen R.

Academic Unit, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, London WC1N 3HR, UK.

Dowsing is a method of problem-solving that uses a motor automatism, amplified through a pendulum or similar device. In a homeopathic context, it is used as an aid to prescribing and as a tool to identify miasm or toxin load. A randomized double-blind trial was conducted to determine whether six dowsing homeopaths were able to distinguish between Bryonia in a 12c potency and placebo by use of dowsing alone. The homeopathic medicine Bryonia was correctly identified in 48.1% of bottle pairs (n=156; 95% confidence interval 40.2%, 56.0%; P=0.689). These results, wholly negative, add to doubts whether dowsing in this context can yield objective information.


If you or someone you know has better results differentiating between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo using a pendulum or other device, please contact me and I’ll be glad to help you apply for and win the million dollar challenge offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation (www.jref.org).

If you’ve found that placebos work well for some of your conditions, then please don’t think that I’m telling you to stop taking them. They may be the most cost effective therapy for your complaints. However, please be sure to consult with a qualified nutritionist and medical diagnostician to make sure that you aren’t missing the cause of a disease or misdiagnosing the severity of a disease which has a treatment or cure backed by real research. It would be terrible if someone today eating a diet of raw corn were to develop pellagra and try to self-treat it with diluted puffball in vodka.