Disclaimer: Any views or advice in this news section should not be taken as a substitute for medical advice or treatment, especially if you know you have a specific health complaint.

NEWS RELEASE 22nd March 2007

“SCIENCE DEGREES WITHOUT THE SCIENCE”

The Society of Homeopaths, the UK’s largest register of professional homeopaths, supports the conferment of science degrees on graduates of homeopathy courses, strongly refuting the assertion by Professor David Colquhoun in ‘Nature’ (Vol 446/22 March 2007) that homeopathy is “anti-science.”

In fact there is considerable evidence demonstrating the clinical effectiveness of homeopathic treatment, including a large outcomes study published in 2005, of an analysis of over 23,000 outpatient consultations at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital,in which more than 70% reported clinical improvement. (1)

Chief Executive, Paula Ross comments “Colquhoun’s attempt to pitch science against what he unhelpfully terms “anti-science” is typical of the sort of reductionist approach that would have science focus only on the known whilst ignoring the presently unknown.

What he conveniently chooses to overlook is the fact that homeopathy is a growth area, with thousands of people seeing a practitioner and in excess of £25 million pounds being spent on homeopathy each year. Surely what is needed is more funding and research into exactly how so many people are benefiting from it. And what better section of a university is suited to this task than the science faculty?”

Ends

Notes to Editors
(1) Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a six-year University-Hospital Outpatient Observational Study. Dr. D.S Spence, Dr. E A Thompson & S J Barron. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2005; 11:5:793-798

The Society of Homeopaths
The Society of Homeopaths is the largest body of professional homeopaths in the UK. Established in 1978, it has over 1,300 registered members.

Registered members of The Society of Homeopaths have graduated from a Society recognised college, are fully insured and practise in accordance with a strict Code of Ethics & Practice. A copy of the Society’s Code of Ethics & Practice plus the register is available on www.homeopathy-soh.org.

For further details, please contact Paula Ross or Pamela Stevens, Communications Department on 0845 450 6611 or info@homeopathy-soh.org

The Society of Homeopaths, 11 Brookfield, Duncan Close, Moulton Park, Northampton NN3 6WL
Tel: 0845 450 6611 Fax: 0845 450 6622 Website: www.homeopathy-soh.org

Deviating from the trend of rejecting homeopathy treatment and medicine as mere placebos, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared that homeopathy is the second-most used medical system internationally. NOTE! http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IER20051224223245&Page=R&Title=K erala&Topic=0 WHO recognition for homeopathy Newindpress, India - 24 Dec 2005 WHO recognition for homeopathy Sunday December 25 2005 08:54 IST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Deviating from the trend of rejecting homeopathy treatment and medicine as mere placebos, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared that homeopathy is the second-most used medical system internationally. “Clinical trials have proved that this method of treatment has been successful if the practitioners have taken into account the individual holistic nature of the patient before opting for homeopathy,” says Dr T N Sreedhara Kurup, Assistant Director In-Charge of the Central Research Institute for Homeopathy. Different patients will receive different treatments for the same disease making it difficult to conduct randomised control trials, he said. “Homeopathy is that stream of medicine, which prescribes medicines suitable to the individual and the cost of treatment is affordable when compared to Allopathy. Besides, it is claimed that homeopathic medicines are devoid of any harmful side-effects,” says Dr Ravi M Nair, a homeopathy specialist. About 500 million people rely on homeopathy treatment in the world. As a system of medicine, it draws support from hundreds of thousands of doctors, teaching institutions and universities where homeopathy is taught. Research centres and manufacturing units with focus on developing newer drugs for treatment of diseases provide ample proof that homeopathic medicines are not mere placebos, Nair said. Modern medicine and research too have arrived at a premise that many diseases have their origin in genes. It was 200 years ago that Samuel Hahnemann started working on this concept to evolve a mode of treatment based on the individual requirements called homeopathy, he said.

Lou Klein has published on his website details of the 8 homeopathy trials that formed the basis for the conclusions of the Lancet paper. Look under the section entitled ‘more’

In summary:

3 studies deal with the prevention of flu
2 with treatment of flu
1 with prevention of conjunctivitis
1 using arnica for muscle soreness in long distance runners

Needless to say none of them invloved individualised treatment

Lancet response

The article by Shang et al (1) concludes that their findings are compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects but it raises more questions than answers.

In this report the authors thoroughly examine 110 trials of homeopathy and 110 matched trials of allopathic medicine, comparing effects and the looking for presence of bias resulting from inadequate methods and selective publication. When they examined the 220 trials they find no evidence of more bias in the homeopathy trials than in the allopathy trials.
They then go on to estimate the treatment effects in a very small subset of 14 trials that they deem to be least likely to be affected by bias and base their conclusions upon these estimates.

Of the total 220 trials the authors identify 21 homeopathy trials and 8 allopathic trials that are of higher standard according to their own set criteria. They then proceed to further select the small subset of purportedly larger and higher methodological quality trials (8 homeopathy trials and 6 conventional medicine trials) from which the paper’s conclusions are drawn. The authors do not provide an explanation as to how they chose the particular cut off point that they used to select the 14 trials nor do they reference the selected trials. Since this small subset of trials form the basis for their conclusions it merits more explanation in description of method and is of fundamental importance when assessing validity of the authors’ conclusions for many reasons including the following:
* The authors generalise from an extremely small pool of data to draw their apparently broad and damning conclusions.
* Identification of the particular trials that are used in the final analysis would enable a fair critique of the validity of the included trials. The conflict between internal and external validity which plagues research in CAM has resulted in some homeopathy trials being of high internal validity but bearing little or no resemblance to the practice of homeopathy leading to spurious results. Such results may then feed into wider meta-analyses when selection criteria are based purely upon internal validity as is the case in this study
Elucidation of the rationale for choosing this small number of studies as well as a list of which studies this seemingly comprehensive interpretation was drawn from is essential.

Other questions that this piece of research raises:

1. The authors_ conclusions are premised upon the supposition that the placebo controlled randomised trial represents the gold standard against which all research should be judged. It is becomingly increasingly understood that there are considerable problems in using this method to test complex interventions such as homeopathy
2. It is always going to be difficult to adopt reductionist research method of RCT to measure effects of complex intervention such as homeopathy. Two primary concerns for homeopaths are that the treatment is holistic and that it is individualised. Treatment cannot be standardised and patient response is unpredictable. Some patients may take months to show any improvement. RCTs are looking for specific effects whereas homeopathy is attempting to treat the whole person
3. Many different types of prescribing method for homeopathy trials are all considered equally. Of the 100 trials selected only 18 (16%) deemed _classical homeopathy_ i.e. the type of individualised prescribing that occurs in real life and there is no indication of how many of the selected 8 trials involved this type of prescribing
4. The authors define 4 different types of homeopathic intervention whilst the majority of the allopathic trials are pharmaceutical. Hence in their attempt to match pairs of trials the authors will have been forced to match some homeopathy trials of complex intervention with simple intervention of the allopathic trials.
5. Assessment of study quality focuses upon 3 key domains of internal validity with apparently no regard to external validity. Hence the selected trials may have been deemed highest quality without actually bearing any relation to the practice of homeopathy
6. Any meta-analysis of homeopathy will necessarily be considering only a small number of trials as there are relatively few for any one condition. This leads to the pooling of heterogeneous data.
7. The authors display their own bias in interpretation when they dismiss out of hand the substantially beneficial pooled effect from 8 trials of homeopathic remedies in upper respiratory tract infections. This in spite of the fact that the trials perform well in the authors_ own set test of funnel_plot asymmetry which demonstrated that there was no significant difference between effects in the higher quality trial and the lower quality trials. Here the authors speak of _biases prevalent in these publications_ to excuse the effect without specifying in any way how they relate to these trials and indicate that conclusions from these trials _cannot be trusted_
8. 21 homeopathy trials and 9 allopathic are identified as being of higher quality, why are so few allopathic trials of higher quality? We know that research in homeopathy is seriously under-funded and undermanned but this is not the case for pharmaceutical research
9. Since they have already established that a far higher percentage of homeopathy trials (21%) than allopathy trials (8%) were of highest quality it does beg the question as to how we are ever able to trust the conclusions of allopathic drug trials

Conclusion

Far from being the ultimate test of homeopathy this meta-analysis leaves many questions unanswered. In summary, the conclusions that the authors draw are premised upon the supposition that the placebo-controlled RCT is the highest standard against which we should measure quality of research method, and takes no account of the complex nature of the homeopathic intervention. In addition, broad conclusions are drawn from a small pool of data from a total of 8 homeopathy trials and 6 allopathic trials. The trials selected for final analysis are not referenced and we are therefore unable to establish their external validity and verify the authors_ statements that these represent trials of homeopathy of highest quality available.

Kate Chatfield MSc RSHom
Clare Relton MSc RSHom

> From: Jagannath Chatterjee
> Date: September 1, 2005 7:00:33 AM CDT
> Subject: [hpe] Indian Govt takes on Lancet Report.
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Incensed by the Lancet Report signalling the “End of Homeopathy”, the
> Govt of India has declared it will supply the Lancet magazine with all
> data required to show that homeopathy really works. It has said that
> homeopathy has been extremely popular in India ever since Dr J M
> Hoenigberger arrived in 1839 to treat Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab,
> curing him of paralysis of vocal chords and oedema.
>
> Dr Hoenigberger then settled at Calcutta (now Kolkata) for a long time
> before returning to Germany. Calcutta is supposed to be a bastion of
> Homeopathy in India as eminent public figures studied the science,
> translated Hahnemann’s works, wrote about their own findings and even
> discovered new drugs.
>
> The homeopathic physicians of India have equally condemned the report
> citing statistics about the growing popularity of homeopathy in India.
>
> Dr Ramadoss, the Union Health Minister, and a physician himself, said
> that in today’s scenario, even modern doctors were not averse to refer
> their patients to homeopathy. A report said that 87% of the physicians
> in India believed that homeopathy works.
>
> The homeopaths in India were equivocal in pointing out that it was the
> growing popularity of homeopathy that had led the drug industry to
> sponsor the unethical and flawed report. They said it was surprised
> that Lancet, which had previously published reports that homeopathy
> works, would do a turnaround and declare the “end of homeopathy”. They
> said homeopathy was in the threshold of a new dawn.
>
> Only the Times of India in India has published the Lancet Report. And
> now today it has published the statement of Dr Ramadoss prominently
> thus atoning for its earlier sins. Homeopathy has a very large
> following in India and has been officially recognised since 1937.
>
> Regards,
Jagannath.

Observing the benefits of placebos

Wednesday August 31, 2005
[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/ ]The Guardian

Ben Goldacre’s thought-provoking piece (A tonic for sceptics, August 29) moves forward the debate about homeopathy and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The argument is no longer about whether homeopathy works, but how it works. He is absolutely right, therefore, to single out the placebo effect as “the most interesting phenomenon in medicine”, and that it goes into the cultural meaning of treatment. But it’s a pity he stopped there, for the whole of western science is also culturally defined. For homeopathy, this raises two issues - one theoretical, the other practical.

First, the observation problem. Physics teaches us that reality and our observation of it cannot be separated. The corollary - that any attempt at such separation can essentially destroy the “reality” under observation - is precisely what is perpetrated during blinded trials of homeopathy. Consequently, the double blind placebo-controlled trial, as applied to homeopathy and CAM, is the scientific equivalent of Nelson putting a telescope to his blind eye.
Second, if Goldacre believes “that in many cases, homeopathy does seem to help, as a complex intervention” albeit one that is “placebo, in all its rich glory” then there is no further need for debate. However homeopathy is deemed to “work”, it should be available alongside conventional medicine, where apart from its therapeutic benefits, its non-toxic and economic advantages would be appreciated.
Lionel Milgrom London

Why is it that only the negative research results about homeopathy get the headlines? Take, for instance, the research done at the Institute for Pharmacy at the University of Leipzig: using concentrations of belladonna which were literally less than a drop in the ocean, statistically significant changes in the contractions of the gut of rats were measured consistently and repeatedly. The study used double-blind techniques designed to detect the placebo effect. It compared results obtained by following precisely the special stirring techniques used in homeopathy, or by ignoring them, and found a positive correlation in favour homeopathy.
Kevin Mannerings
Pforzheim, Germany

Last week I mailed off-prints of Clare’s outcomes from her NHS service in Sheffield

Homeopathic treatment has excellent outcomes in NHS community menopause clinic

Dear

I am enclosing the latest findings from Sheffieldís NHS community menopause clinic which has run a homeopathy service since 1998. In an audit conducted between 2001 and 2003, patients reported significant benefit from the service. The audit was repeated in 2004 and the results form the basis of this report, published in the Journal of the British Menopause Society in June 2005.

The results are consistent with earlier findings and conclude that 88% of patients reported clinically significant improvement in their primary symptoms. Greatest clinical benefit was for headaches, tiredness, vasomotor symptoms, locomotor symptoms and sleeping difficulties.

I hope you will agree the homeopathic treatment of menopausal problems might offer a useful alternative to hormone replacement therapy, since this treatment is often contra-indicated and has come under considerable scrutiny in recent months.

Yours sincerely,

The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Society of Homeopaths.

In this issue
1. Homeopathic
medicine: why it
works well for
sportsmen and women
5. Recovery: ward off
overtraining by dealing
with stress from all
sources
8. Book review: the
hidden mathematics of
sport
9. Nutritional
supplements: is
creatine really safe for
long-term use?
11. What The
Papers Say:
.Zinc
.Selenium
.Women v men
Homeopathy is a form of medicine that has
become increasingly popular in recent years,
with more than 30 million users in Europe and
many millions more across the globe. Sportsmen
and women are particularly likely to favour
homeopathic preparations – and with good
reason, writes Jim Rogers
In simple terms, homeopathy is a complete system
of medicine that has been in use around the world
for more than 200 years. Although it is often
lumped together – and confused with – herbal
medicine, aromatherapy and other so-called
‘complementary therapies’, homeopathy is a
unique system, with defining features that
distinguish it from any other method.
The word homeopathy is derived from the
Greek words ‘homoios’, meaning similar, and
‘pathy’, meaning suffering. It is based on the
principle of ‘treating like with like’, known to
homeopaths as ‘the law of similars’. This idea was
known to the ancient Greeks and suggested by
Hippocrates, but it wasn’t until the early nineteenth
century that it was developed into a system by the
German doctor Samuel Hahnemann.
The second defining feature of homeopathy is
that the medicines are used in ultra-molecular, or
very extreme, dilutions. This practice developed
through systematic experimentation, which
indicated that a process of repeated dilution of a
substance, together with a vigorous shaking of the
Can less really be more when it
comes to treating sports injuries?
The last generation has witnessed an
unprecedented rise in the popularity of all forms
of alternative or ‘complementary’ medicine. And
it seems that sportsmen and women are in the
vanguard of this particular fashion, at least as far
as homeopathy is concerned.
According to new contributor Jim Rogers
there is a strong correlation between regular
sports participation and the use of
homeopathy. Which is not surprising when you
consider that homeopathic preparations cost
less than NHS prescription medicines, pose
no risk of harmful side effects, work with
rather than against the body’s own repair
mechanisms and will not show up in any drug
testing procedures (page 1).
Athletes and their coaches are very good at
devising – and measuring the effects of – training
programmes. But how many would even think of
prescribing or measuring a recovery programme,
asks James Marshall. Yet recovery plays a crucial
role in promoting adaptation and preventing
overtraining. If you don’t have such a
programme, don’t worry: Marshall has done the
work for you (see page 5).
Elsewhere in this issue, Andrew Hamilton
considers the long-term safety of creatine use
(page 9), Andy Etchells reviews a fascinating
new book on ‘the hidden mathematics of sport’
(page and our ‘What The Papers Say’ section
reports on new findings about athletes’ zinc and
selenium requirements and new thoughts on
the vexed question of whether women will ever
outpace men (page 11).
Isabel Walker editor
Homeopathy: safe, cheap – and undetectable
FROM THE EDITOR
HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE
continued on page 2
PEAK PERFORMANCE
The research newsletter on
stamina, strength and fitness
NUMBER 218
mixture at each stage of dilution, produced,
paradoxically, a more potent or effective medicine.
Many scientists find this idea completely
illogical because it defies the known laws of
chemistry and physics. However, others have
found that it makes a lot of sense in practice.
In recent years, many attempts have been made
to develop new theories that can explain its
mechanism of action, which remains mysterious.
Bear in mind, though, that there are a number of
conventional medicines, including aspirin and
certain antibiotics, whose mechanism of action
remains unknown but are still prescribed with
confidence by doctors.
A sceptical approach
Many researchers approach the subject of
homeopathy with scepticism and are then
persuaded to change their minds by the evidence.
For example, pharmacologist Madeleine Ennis and
colleagues from Belfast recently embarked on a
study to prove that homeopathy was impossible
(1)
.
They repeated earlier controversial research into
the effects of dilutions of histamine on human white
blood cells involved in inflammation. The study,
replicated in four different laboratories, found that
homeopathic dilutions so small that they
theoretically contained not a single histamine
molecule acted just like histamine. Ennis’
conclusion was that ‘we are unable to explain ourPEAK PERFORMANCE ISSUE 218
findings and are reporting them to encourage
others to investigate this phenomenon’.
Before looking at further evidence for and
against homeopathy it is worth considering for a
moment the central idea of homeopathy and
asking if it makes any sense. Why should the idea
of curing like with like hold any validity? Consider
for a moment what it means when the body
produces a symptom, whether it be pain, swelling,
inflammation, fever or anything else. A symptom
is a sign that something is going wrong, but it is also
part of the healing process.
As Andrew Hamilton demonstrated in a recent
issue of Peak Performance (PP 214, page 1), the
process of inflammation is a necessary response to
injury which, through a range of complex
processes, allows the renewal and healing of
damaged tissue.
If symptoms are part of the healing process,
what is the best way to treat them? The strategy
employed by conventional medicine is to remove
or suppress them – and, indeed, anti-inflammatory
medications do this very well. However, as
Hamilton pointed out, suppressing symptoms may
also suppress the healing process, and it is now
clear that this is exactly what happens with the
commonly-used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs).
Treatment mimics symptoms
Homeopathy takes the opposite approach by
prescribing a treatment that, far from suppressing
the symptoms, actually mimics them for a short
time and therefore encourages the healing
process. Thus a homeopath might prescribe to a
person with a fever a preparation of belladonna
(deadly nightshade), an obvious poison which can
cause a very high fever along with many other
symptoms.
Because the amounts used in homeopathic
preparations are diluted to an extreme degree and
in a series of stages, all homeopathic preparations
are very safe. Indeed, homeopathy is probably the
safest of all medical systems. A very thorough
review of the worldwide literature found that,
while there can be adverse effects, these are always
mild and transient
(2)
. Herbal medicines can be toxic
and even acupuncture carries some risks, such as
contaminated needles. By contrast, homeopathy
offers the ideal risk:benefit ratio.
Does homeopathy really work?
Contrary to popular perception, a wide range of
trials have been carried out on homeopathy, and
in the last 20 years a number of attempts have been
made to summarise and assess these trials. A
standard technique is ‘meta-analysis’, which pools
and assesses the data from a range of trials and
includes issues of quality and reliability.
For example, a 1991 meta-analysis by Linde et
al, which considered the evidence from 107 trials,
was published in the respected medical journal The
Lancet. The authors were surprised by the amount
of favourable evidence they found – 81 of the trials
had positive results – and concluded: ‘it is wrong to
say that homeopathy has not been evaluated
according to the modern method of controlled
trials’
(3)
.
In 1996 the European Parliament requested a
similar study. Data from trials comparing
homeopathy either to placebo or to no treatment
were examined and the authors, non-homeopathic
scientific researchers, concluded that the number
of significant results was clearly not down to
chance
(4)
.
An important point to bear in mind is that
homeopathic medicines are usually matched to
individual symptoms rather than to diagnostic
categories. A 1997 meta-analysis of 89 trials, which
took account of this individualised treatment,
concluded that: ‘it is impossible that the clinical
effects of homeopathy were exclusively caused by
a placebo effect’
(5)
. As Dr David Taylor Reilly, of
the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, noted after
the third in a series of trials of homeopathy in
allergy treatment showed positive results: ‘Either
homeopathy works or the clinical trial does not’
(6)
.
A systematic review of results from 93
randomised controlled trials (RCTs) carried out
in 2003 concluded that, of 35 different medical
conditions covered by these trials, the evidence
favoured a positive treatment effect in eight, as
follows: childhood diarrhoea, fibrositosis, hay
fever, influenza, pain (miscellaneous), side effects
of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, sprains and
upper respiratory tract infections
(7)
.
Homeopathy in sport
Several trials of homeopathy have considered the
effects on sports injuries, such as ankle sprains,
muscle strains and muscle soreness after exercise,
2
HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE
Table 1: ten reasons for athletes to choose
homeopathic medicines
.There are no harmful side effects
.They are safe to use in all cases, and equally effective in babies, old people
and pregnant women
.Because of the degree of dilution, they will not show up in any drug testing
procedures, so there is no need to check whether any of the ingredients are on
a banned list
.They cost less than NHS prescription medicines
.Unlike conventional medicines, they can be kept for later use, with often only
a few tablets from a bottle being needed for each episode of treatment
.They are NOT tested on animals – all homeopathic medicines are tested
through systematic trials with healthy human volunteers
.They work with rather than against the body’s own repair mechanisms
.They have been used effectively, in all parts of the world, for over 200 years
.They appear to speed up the healing process and get you back to training and
performing more quickly
.An increasing amount of high-quality scientific research demonstrates that
homeopathic medicines really do work
Jargonbuster
Placebo
Inactive substance or
treatment which looks
identical to an active
substance or treatment
and is used as a
‘control’ in scientific
trials to elucidate the
real effects of an active
treatment
Randomised
controlled trial (RCT)
The ‘gold standard’
form of scientific trial in
which each participant
is assigned through a
randomised procedure
to either an active
treatment or placebo
Electrolytes
Mineral salts carrying
an electrical charge,
which are naturally
present in the body and
are needed for the
regulation of muscle
contractions and other
functions
Creatinine
An end product of
normal muscle
metabolism, which is
produced at a
measurable and
predictable rate after
exercisePEAK PERFORMANCE ISSUE 218
3
while others have homed in on the kinds of health
problems many athletes are prone to, including
upper respiratory tract infections, influenza, hay
fever and cramps.
Homeopathic medicines are used in a range of
different strengths, which are indicated by a
number after the name of the medicine. Thus a
study which mentions arnica 6x refers to a
preparation of arnica that has been prepared using
six stages of dilution and succusion (vigorous
shaking) of the crude substance, with each stage
involving a 1-in-10 dilution of the original
substance. When the letter ‘c’ appears after the
number, this denotes a centesimal dilution – ie one
part in 100.
Arnica and muscle soreness
Arnica is one of the most popular homeopathic
remedies for musculoskeletal problems, and many
endurance athletes use it in the belief that it can
reduce muscular soreness after exercise. There
have been a number of studies of this remedy. For
example, a 1998 study of arnica for treating muscle
soreness after long-distance running found it no
more effective than placebo – a finding that has
been widely reported
(8)
.
However, a similar study carried out in Norway
in 2003 found that arnica did reduce muscle
soreness after marathon running
(9)
. This study
pooled results from two trials conducted around
the Oslo Marathon in 1990 and 1995. The
treatment, tablets of arnica 30, was started on the
night before the race and continued for four days.
Runners assessed muscular soreness on a
visual analogue scale, while muscle enzymes,
electrolytes and creatinine were measured before
and after the marathon. The results suggested
that, while arnica did not have any effect on cell
damage as measured by enzymes, it did reduce
muscle soreness.
As far as arnica is concerned, one further study
is worthy of mention. Arnica 5c was given to
patients subjected to prolonged venous perfusion
(a condition which easily leads to phlebitis)
(10)
. The
researchers found that arnica not only reduced
pain and inflammation by comparison with
placebo but also inhibited the formation of
haematomas. Furthermore, the arnica-treated
group also experienced improved blood flow and
clotting ability.
In other research, a trial comparing two
homeopathic drugs against placebo for muscular
cramps found the homeopathic preparations to be
therapeutically superior
(11)
.
A placebo-controlled trial of a topically
applied homeopathic remedy to treat tibiotarsal
(ankle) sprain also found that the homeopathic
treatment was superior
(12)
. In this trial, patients
who used the homeopathic combination remedy
Traumeel were significantly more likely to be
pain-free on day 10 of treatment than those in the
placebo group.
Another trial of Traumeel for a range of sports
injuries again found it superior to placebo on
measures of maximum muscle force, time to
resumption of training, pain severity and overall
evaluation by patients and doctors
(13)
.
It is well established that sports performers are
particularly prone to infection when training at
high intensity. For example, a study after the Los
Angeles Marathon found that one in seven
runners came down with an upper respiratory
infection after taking part in the race, compared
with just two out of 100 runners who didn’t
compete
(14)
. Take part in an ultra event, such as a
100-mile race, and your chances of getting sick are
more like one in four
(15)
!
Homeopathy is widely used to treat infections
and homeopathic medicines have been shown not
HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE
Arnica montana ( made from the plant also known as leopard’s bane)
This is the first remedy that users of homeopathy think of for any kind of
injury. The list of symptoms which have been successfully treated by arnica
include:
.Bruising
.Shock (dazed, cold, fainting, confusion)
Ruta graveolens (made from the plant also known as rue)
.Injuries to the periosteum, eg bruised shins
.Sprained ankles, bursitis
.Stiffness in the joints that improves with movement and warmth but is
worse if too much activity is undertaken and in cold, damp conditions
Rhus tox (made from the poison ivy plant)
.Plantar fasciitis, tendinitis
.Stiffness which is worse on first movement and in the cold but improves
with continued movement and with warmth
Hypericum (the homeopathic use of the St John’s wort plant)
.Injuries to parts that are rich in nerves and hence tend to be very painful,
eg coccyx, fingers and toes
Ledum (made from the marsh tea plant)
.Bruises that do not respond to arnica
.Black eyes
.Injuries that feel cold to the touch but are also better for application of
cold packs
Calendula (made from the marigold plant)
.Used externally to aid healing of wounds, cuts and abrasions. Has
antiseptic properties
Symphytum (made from the plant also known to herbalists as knitbone)
.To aid and speed the healing of fractures
Traumeel (a combination of 14 homeopathic remedies in low strengths –
3x-6x – which can be used internally or externally, as a cream)
.Traumas such as sprains and bruises with their resulting pain,
inflammation and swelling
Table 2: common homeopathic remedies used by
athletes
Jargonbuster
Venous perfusion
The filling of veins with
blood
Phlebitis
Inflammation of a vein,
usually accompanied
by pain, swelling and
tenderness
Haematoma
A collection of clotted
blood within the tissues
which usually forms a PEAK PERFORMANCE ISSUE 218
just to reduce the occurrence of upper respiratory
tract infections and influenza but to treat them
effectively when they do arise.
Several studies have suggested that the
homeopathic remedy oscillococcinum (which is
prepared from a duck liver) is a very effective
treatment for influenza. One study found that the
remedy significantly increased the rate of cure
within two days of diagnosis
(16)
. This was a high-quality
trial, published in an important, non-homeopathic
journal and involving large
numbers of patients (237 treated and 241 on
placebo).
A recent literature review of this treatment
found that it did reduce the duration of illness in
patients presenting with influenza symptoms.
However, the researchers concluded that, while
promising, the evidence was not strong enough to
recommend the use of oscillococcinum as a first-line
treatment
(17)
.
Cough treatment
A further example in the field of respiratory tract
infections relates to the treatment of cough. A
French study looked at the treatment of dry cough
with a syrup mixture based on the homeopathic
remedy drosera and nine other homeopathic
remedies. After one week the cough had
improved or disappeared altogether in 20 out of
30 patients in the treatment group, compared with
only eight out of 30 in the placebo group
(18)
.
Interestingly, it seems that sportsmen and
women are particularly motivated to use
complementary therapies like homeopathy. A
study of 436 patients attending German hospitals
found that 42% used some form of alternative
medicine, with homeopathy by far the most
popular. While there was no statistical link between
use of these therapies and age, gender, education
or duration of the problem, there was a strong
correlation with regular sports participation
(19)
.
It has been said that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence. And many
members of the orthodox scientific community
have argued that homeopathy is too extraordinary
to credit. However, there is a growing body of high-quality
evidence that homeopathic treatment is
superior to placebo for a range of conditions.
While the evidence remains weak and
contradictory in some areas, it is worth pointing
out that homeopathy is both low cost and low risk.
As well as proving superior to placebo it has been
shown for a range of conditions to be as good as the
equivalent conventional medicine, yet with no side
effects and lower cost
(20)
.
We can only hope that the current increase in
the number of high quality research studies into
homeopathy continues, and that researchers in
fields related to sports science can add to this body
of knowledge and help to answer some of the many
questions which remain in relation to this popular
form of medicine.
In the meantime, sportsmen and women who
use homeopathy can do so safe in the knowledge
that, while the body of scientific evidence behind
it remains relatively small, the evidence is growing
rapidly and it is undoubtedly a very safe and
inexpensive method of treatment .
Jim Rogers B Hons, RMN, RS Hom is a registered
homeopath practising in Hull and East Yorkshire
and also lecturing on complementary medicine at
the University of Lincoln. He is also an ultra runner
(currently the fastest in the UK over 24 hours) and
has a keen interest in the use of complementary
medicine in sport
4
HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE
Homeopathy – a sports doctor’s testimonial
Dr Jean Marcel Ferret, doctor to the French soccer team from 1993-
2004, the period which included their World Cup win, became an advocate
of homeopathy. Here’s why:
‘I am open to all techniques. As a sports doctor I quickly discovered that,
except for anti-inflammatories and muscle relaxants, I was very limited in
the care of athletes. I began to use homeopathy, first occasionally, and
then more and more. At first the athletes were surprised and even wary. So
I explained how and why homeopathy acts. The greatest value in sports?
Its speed of action. I can use it directly on the soccer field, within seconds
of the trauma, and note the results almost immediately.
‘The players are highly trained, a population at risk, with slightly defective
immune systems. We have to protect their health… this involves an
emphasis on prevention, taking into account the personality of each
player. I now know that this approach is that of homeopathy’
(21)
Dr Ferret’s experience mirrors that of many doctors and coaches who add
homeopathy to their repertoire of techniques for assisting athletes at all
levels. They find homeopathy offers treatments that:
.work very fast in acute and traumatic situations;
.support the immune system and help to prevent and treat infection;
.are tailored to each individual and his/her unique physical and
psychological make-up.
References
1. Inflammation Research 2005; 53:181
2. British Homeopathic Journal 2000; 89(1):S35-
38
3. The Lancet 1997; 350:834-43
4. Report to European Commission Directorate XII ,
1996; 16-7
5. Homeopathic Medical Research Advisory Group
1997, EC
6. British Medical Journal 321:471
7. Homeopathy 2003; 92(2):84-91
8. Clinical Journal of Pain 1998; Sep 14 (3): 227-
231
9. Homeopathy 2003; 92(4):187-189
10. Cahiers Biotherapie 1988; 98.77
11. Allgemeine Homeopathische Zeitung 1976;
221: 26-31
12. Forts der Med 1988; 96:62-100
13. Biol Ther 1992; 10(41):290-300
14. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness
1990; 30(3):316-28
15. International Journal of Sports Medicine 2003;
24:541-47
16. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1989;
27:329
17. Cochrane Database Systematic Review 2000;
CD001957
18. Cahiers d’Otorhinolaryngologie 21.731
19. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1998; 128:616-22
20. Homeopathy Scientific Proofs of Efficacy 2002,
GUNA, Milan
21. www.boiron.com/en/htm/03_homeo_medecine/
homeo_med_sport.htm
Jargonbuster
Periosteum
A layer of dense
connective tissue that
covers the surface of a
bone
Plantar fasciitis
Foot arch pain

Thursday, September 21, 2006 09:23:57

BBC NEWS
Campaign to save homeopathy unit
Supporters of a Kent clinic which is one of just five in the UK to provide homeopathic treatment on the NHS have met to fight plans to close it.

The Homeopathic Hospital, in Tunbridge Wells, treats up to 1,000 patients a year but the primary care trust (PCT) which runs it needs to save £160,000.

A public meeting on Tuesday heard how patients had come to rely on the unit.

James Thallon, of the South West Kent PCT, said the trust was “critically reviewing every aspect of expenditure”.

“In order to save the large amounts you need to look at every little last bit on your balance sheet, and we have had to look at homeopathy in that light,” the medical director said.

I’ve relied on the hospital… it just mustn’t shut down
Mary Williams, patient

He explained that the hospital as a whole was not facing closure, just the homeopathy department.

The hospital also houses community paediatrics and a child and adolescent mental health service.

Mr Thallon said in future all patients referred for homeopathy would be considered by a special panel to ensure their treatment was appropriate.

“Homeopathy has been around since the 18th Century and has got a large body of very convinced adherents, but in the era of evidence-based medicine it’s beginning to struggle a little bit, so I’m afraid that we’re reflecting this in our decision.”

Mary Williams, 87, has been going to the hospital for 56 years, where both her mother and grandmother were patients too.

She is allergic to conventional medicine and said: “I’m devastated. I’ve relied on the hospital… it just mustn’t shut down.”