When I was in
school in the late 1950’s I heard of homeopathic medicine. I then thought it
was an Indian system of medicine. This belief was reinforced when I went to
Calcutta to study where I found there were courses in homeopathic medicine
offered as well as on conventional medicine with students in both these two
systems of medicines staying together in the same hostel. I did not think much
about this as I still thought it was a system of traditional Indian medicine
until I went to the University of London for my postgraduate studies.
In one of my
trainings in London I went to the world-famous Hospital for Children in Great
Ormond St, London WC1N 3HR where to my great surprise I saw the Royal
Homeopathic Hospital located just beside the Children Hospital in the same
street.
I then
wondered how Indian medicine came to London, England. Out of curiosity I went
inside the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, and I was amazed the doctors there were
also medically qualified in conventional medicine with additional
qualifications on homeopathic medicine.
I then found
homeopathic medicine is not an Indian system of medicine, but a western medical
system founded by a German physician by the name of Samuel Hahnemann
(1755-1843). We shall go into that shortly.
But let us for
the moment look at how homeopathic medicine came to London, to my amazement of
course.
The
London Homoeopathic Hospital was established by Dr Frederick Foster Hervey Quin
in 1849.
He was among
the first doctors to practice homeopathy in Britain, and had studied with its
founder, Hahnemann. The original London Homoeopathic Hospital was in Golden
Square, Soho, and was established on 10 October 1849, although it did not
receive its first patient until March the following year.
Quin was a
prominent figure in London society and very well connected, having been
physician to Queen Victoria’s father-in-law Prince Leopold, father of Prince
Albert. He was a personal friend of Charles Dickens and godfather to one
of his children. Among his other patients were the painter Landseer and the
novelist Thackeray. But, despite his connections, Quin was always committed to
bringing homeopathy to the people.
The hospital’s
first great success came in 1854, when a cholera epidemic broke out in Soho,
originating from the water of the Broad Street pump (this was the infamous
epidemic which came to an abrupt end when Dr John Snow removed the handle of
the pump. At that time, the London Homoeopathic Hospital was the closest
hospital to the pumps and achieved remarkable success in treating the victims
of the epidemic. The Hospital’s mortality rate was 16 per cent, compared
to 53 per cent at the nearby Middlesex Hospital.
Even then
there was scepticism towards homeopathy. A report on the epidemic for
Parliament the following year omitted the figures from the hospital. These were
only published after a thunderous speech in the House of Lords by Lord
Grosvenor, Chairman of the Hospital Board.
The Hospital's
reputation continued to grow, and homeopathy gained increasing support.
Just ten years after its establishment, in 1859 a new and larger
Homoeopathic Hospital was built in 1893-5 on its present site in Great Ormond
Street and a new wing, facing Queen Square, was added in 1911.
Many
well-known homeopathic physicians were associated with the RLHH in the 19th and
20th centuries, including Robert Ellis Dudgeon, John Henry Clarke, James
Compton Burnett, Edward Bach, Charles E Wheeler, James Kenyon, Margaret Tyler,
Douglas Borland, Sir John Weir, Donald Foubister, Margery Blackie and Ralph
Twentyman among others. The famous names are not only doctors, but Miss
Marion Brew, ‘Lady Superintendent’ or Matron from 1875 to 1906, was a prominent
figure in the nursing profession.
A cache of 300
volumes containing the case notes of 1,426 patients treated from 1889 to 1923
was discovered in the vaults in 1992. This rare material offers a fascinating
insight into the Hospital's work during that period.
The Royal
Homeopathic Hospital in London has since integrated other alternative and
complementary systems of medicine into its service. It has now become The Royal
London Hospital for Integrated Medicine as part of the University College
London Hospitals under the British National Health Service (NHS)
The Royal
London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (RLHIM) is a centre for evidence-based
practice, education and research, specialising in chronic and complex medical
conditions.
Their mission
is to provide a person-centred, holistic approach, including self-care, in
order to help people with chronic and complex medical conditions live well and
feel better.
Their approach
considers the whole person and their environment in the quest for optimal
health and wellbeing.
In order to
achieve this, the Royal Integrated Medicine Hospital provides a combination of
lifestyle strategies, medical, physical and psychological treatment, as well as
advice on safe and appropriate use of complementary therapies. They also
deliver and encourage self-care approaches which can continue to be used by
patients after discharge.
All RLHIM
services are outpatient-based and are staffed by experienced healthcare
professionals.
The hospital
provides an integrated Pharmacy service that includes a retail
pharmacy where patients and the public can obtain advice from pharmacists
specialising in complementary medicines.
The RLHIM also
provides a Complementary and Alternative Medicine Library and Information
Service (CAMLIS) that is open to the public with an education
department that runs courses for healthcare professionals; and
a research department specialising in self-care and integrated
medicine approaches to health.
Let’s have a
look at the history of medicine in the United Kingdom.
Before the
adoption of conventional medicine, treatments in the UK, Europe, and America
relied heavily on herbal remedies, folk practices, and rudimentary surgical
techniques. The transition to modern medical treatments began in the 19th
century with scientific advancements in understanding diseases, developing new
drugs, and improving surgical methods. This transformation was further
solidified in the 20th century with the industrial production of
pharmaceuticals, the establishment of healthcare systems, and the
professionalization of medical practice.
For instance,
in the United Kingdom where I am more familiar with medicine practised there,
during the ancient and medieval periods, before conventional medicine came into
existence, herbal medicine was utilized extensively, with remedies derived from
plants like foxglove (Digitalis) for heart conditions and willow bark
(aspirin's precursor) for pain relief. They also have folk remedies that
included charms, amulets, and rituals believed to have healing powers.
Then they went
into bloodletting and leeching based on the theory of humours, these practices
aimed to balance bodily fluids.
In the 16th -
18th Centuries, came the apothecaries and barber-surgeons that provided herbal
remedies and performed basic surgical procedures.
Early
hospitals in the UK were institutions like St Bartholomew's Hospital in London
began to emerge, focusing on care rather than cures.
The adoption
of conventional medicine emerged in the 19th Century with scientific advances.
The germ theory of disease (by Pasteur and Koch) and the development of
anaesthesia (by Morton and Simpson) revolutionized surgery and disease
treatment.
Then came the
understanding of pharmacology with the isolation of active ingredients from
plants (e.g., morphine from opium) and the synthesis of new compounds (e.g.,
chloroform) began. In the UK medical schools began to be established. The
establishment of medical schools and professional societies improved the
training of physicians and standardized treatments.
In the 20th
Century antibiotics were used. The discovery of penicillin by Alexander
Fleming in 1928 marked the beginning of the antibiotic era. After that in the
UK the National Health Service (NHS) was established in 1948. It provided
universal healthcare, making modern medical treatments accessible to the entire
population.
Almost the
same situation was in the rest of Europe and in America, but we shall not dwell
into their medical history as this essay will become too lengthy except on the
history of homeopathy that arose in Germany, Europe.
The history of
homeopathy started with Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) who was a German
physician. He developed the practice in the late 1700s. Dissatisfied with the
medical practices of his time, Hahnemann proposed an alternative method based
on his observation. Hahnemann published his findings in "Organon of
the Medical Art" (1810), outlining the principles of homeopathy. The
practice gained popularity in Europe and North America in the 19th century.
It is based on
the principles of "like cures like" (similia similibus curentur) and
"law of minimum dose," suggesting that substances that produce
symptoms in a healthy person can be used to treat similar symptoms in a sick
person, and that the lower the dose, the more potent the remedy.
The training
in homeopathy can vary by country, but generally includes, like in conventional
allopathic medicine, basic medical sciences like anatomy, physiology,
pathology, and pharmacology. Homeopathic philosophy and the principles of
homeopathy, history, and ethics are then taught. In their Materia medica
students study homeopathic remedies, their sources, and their effects.
A homeopathic
doctor learns the use of homeopathic repertories, which are indexes of symptoms
and remedies. Their clinical training like in conventional medicine includes
history and case taking, case analysis, and prescription of remedies.
The practical
training is supervised clinical practice with real patients.
The length of
a formal course in homeopathy is a full-time course, typically 3-5 years for a
diploma or degree in homeopathy.
There are also
part-time and online courses that can vary widely in length depending on the
institution and country, but I do not recommend this unless they are already
medical doctors who want to learn further.
But how does
homeopathy work? Homeopathy is based on the idea of stimulating the body's own
healing responses. It uses highly diluted substances, which proponents believe
trigger the body's natural defences. Remedies are prepared through a process of
serial dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking).
The clinical
efficacy of homeopathy is highly debated. Proponents claim that homeopathy is
effective for a wide range of conditions, from acute illnesses like colds and
flu to chronic conditions like asthma and arthritis. But there are also
sceptics’ views. Many in the scientific community argue that homeopathy
lacks empirical support and that any positive effects are due to the placebo
effect. Studies often show that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than
placebo.
As far as I
know reviews and meta-analyses typically conclude that there is insufficient
evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific
condition.
Despite what
conventional medical doctors think there are important personalities advocating
homeopathy. These personalities, among them, were and are
1. Mahatma
Gandhi advocated homeopathy, referring to it as a "refined method of
treating patients economically and non-violently."
2. Sir
Yehudi Menuhin, the late world-famous violinist
3. Paul
McCartney, the former Beatles member, has publicly supported homeopathy.
4. Cher,
the singer and actress, has spoken about her use of homeopathic treatments.
5. David
Beckham, the footballer, has reportedly used homeopathy for his injuries.
6. And
even the Late Queen Elizabeth II and the British royal family including King
Charles III all have a long history of using homeopathy.
So, there is
something there we cannot ignore.
While
homeopathy remains popular among some groups and has notable advocates, its
clinical efficacy is not supported by the majority of scientific evidence. The
debate continues, and individuals considering homeopathic treatments should do
so in consultation with qualified healthcare professionals and consider the
broader body of scientific research.
The clinical
efficacy of homeopathy is a contentious issue within the medical community.
Numerous studies and reviews have sought to determine whether homeopathic
treatments are more effective than placebo.
Some studies
report positive outcomes for homeopathic treatments. For example, a
meta-analysis by Linde et al. (1997) initially suggested that homeopathic
remedies had more than placebo effects. However, these findings were later
critiqued for methodological flaws.
Certain
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have found positive effects of homeopathy
for specific conditions. However, these are often small-scale studies, and
their results are not always replicable in larger, more rigorous trials.
A significant
body of research, including a comprehensive meta-analysis by Shang et al.
(2005), published in "The Lancet," concluded that the clinical
effects of homeopathy are indistinguishable from placebo effects. This analysis
indicated that studies with higher methodological quality tend to show less
effect for homeopathy.
Reviews and
meta-analyses by Ernst (2002) in the "British Journal of Clinical
Pharmacology" also found no compelling evidence that homeopathy was
effective for any clinical condition beyond placebo.
As far as my
own experience is concerned, I had patients who were not cured by conventional
hospital drug-based medicine. They were not satisfied with the results of
conventional medicine. They then came to me wanting homeopathic treatment
instead. Unfortunately, I am not trained in homeopathic medicine, but from
their medical history and all the investigations they had earlier, I knew what
they suffered.
Fortunately,
there were homeopathic pharmacies in Kuala Lumpur with whom I could seek
advice. I then wrote out the homeopathic prescription for them and asked them
to come back for follow up. But they never did. So, I have no clue on the
clinical efficacy of these homeopathic treatments for these patients. I
presumed they all got cured and need not come for follow-up anymore.
Nevertheless,
homeopathy remains a polarizing topic. While some individuals and practitioners
advocate for its use based on personal experiences and historical practice, the
majority of scientific evidence does not support its efficacy beyond placebo.
But many patients strongly say yes. They said they were cured using homeopathic
medicine. So, this controversy continues between conventional drug-based and
homeopathic medicines.
But I think it
is best that individuals considering homeopathic treatments should also consult
with conventional healthcare professionals and consider the broader body of
scientific research when making informed decisions about their health. Both can
be equally effective because the human body definitely is not some kind of a
biochemical machine that can only be cured by some chemicals under the hidden
gloried name as “medicines” (drugs). The human body also has a soul, spirit, and a mind, and is definitely not some kind of a biochemistry that can only be
altered by chemical drugs and pharmaceuticals
Medicine is
extremely challenging and very complex.
References:
References on
the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Homeopathy.
National
Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) reports
1.
Shang et al. (2005): This meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled trials
compared homeopathy and conventional medicine. A comprehensive meta-analysis
published in "The Lancet" concluded that the clinical effects of
homeopathy are placebo effects.
2.
Ernst (2002): This review examined multiple systematic reviews and individual
trials, finding no reliable evidence supporting homeopathy's efficacy for any
medical condition. A review in "British Journal of Clinical
Pharmacology" found no compelling evidence to recommend homeopathy for any
clinical condition. "A systematic review of systematic reviews of
homeopathy." British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 54(6), 577-582.
3.
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2015): This
review assessed over 1800 studies and concluded that there are no health
conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.
4.
Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. (2005). "Are the clinical
effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled
trials of homeopathy and allopathy." The Lancet, 366(9487), 726-732.
This
meta-analysis found that when accounting for study quality, homeopathic
treatments do not produce effects different from placebos.
This review
concluded that there is no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be
an effective treatment.
5.
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. (1997). "Are the clinical effects
of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled
trials." The Lancet, 350(9081), 834-843. Initially reported a
positive effect, but subsequent analyses highlighted methodological concerns.
6.
"The Organon of the Medical Art" by Samuel Hahnemann.
7.
"Homeopathy: Science or Myth?" by Bill Gray.
No comments:
Post a Comment