The above named clinical trial by David Taylor Reilly, et al., was published in the Lancet in December 1994. It appears to have been a scrupulously conducted double-blind study which was carried out according to the current standard of what might be known as the "western scientific method."
The study was conducted at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, and it tested the effect of "homeopathically potentized" (to 30CH) allergens on the respiratory symptoms of patients who were diagnosed as suffering from asthma.
The briefest summary of the study is this: that substances such as dust mites, animal furs, various pollens, and the Cladosporium fungus, when given in potency to asthmatics who have been shown to have sensitivity to specific allergens (primarily by means of skin and volumetric respiratory testing) had some ameliorating effects beyond those ameliorations produced by placebo alone. This result was similar to that shown in two other trials previously
conducted in the same primary study, on the effects of "homeopathically prepared" substances on the symptoms of asthma.
The study, in reality, is one which looked at the effects of a complex of isopathic agents, although all of the substances, even the placebo diluent, had been prepared according to the methodology prescribed by the French Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia (with a new vial at each level {Hahnemannian method}) to the 30th potency.
I'm sure that many homeopaths will notice the parameters of the study: that it is about isopathy, that single remedies were not chosen for each individual, that the medicament was an isopathic and complex formula, that the "totality" of symptoms considered were too narrow (indeed, pathological), that the assessment for a result is also too narrow, that the effect of the potentized allergens was at best palliative and at worst directly suppressive and so on.
Here we come to a dilemma. Shall we forever try to satisfy conventional science's skeptics by continuing to design and conduct studies that fit the essential premise of science, reductionism, when such a premise is antithetical to the homeopathic approach of synthesism?
In anticipation of criticism from concrete scientists and allopaths, Reilly et al. are very careful in their conclusion to emphasize that "homeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable, but reproducible way." They also quite rightly assert that it is not good science to reject the results of a study due to a lack of satisfactory explanation of mechanism of action, and that it is rather more important to recognize an effect before demanding an explanation of it.
This study is a great success with regard that to the fact that it gives an indication, according to the standard demanded by the orthodox medical and scientific community, that potentized substances have a biological and energetic effect on the symptoms of living organisms, and as such they may be of use in mediating the suffering of the ill.
This study, then, is a great success from the standpoint that it provides some strong evidence for the reality that the administration of potentized substances do indeed have the power to cause a change in living organisms. This study may do something to cause at least some physicians and scientists to question Science's assumption that dynamized substances act only by placebo effect.
Finally, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that Reilly brought together a great diversity of people and businesses from the homeopathic and allopathic establishment and garnered their support in producing as close to an air-tight study as possible. A great spirit of cooperation and professionalism is apparent as one reads the study and its long list of participants and supporters and the description of the arduous process of planning, executing, and evaluating the results of the study. The cooperative effort among such a large and diverse number of participants is admirable and as much a success as the results of the study itself.
Homeopathy is commonly dismissed by its most vociferous critics/skeptics/opponents as being nothing more than quackery which exploits a placebo effect. This study by Reilly, et al. is not about cure; it is about activity, and it should be appreciated in this light. While the study represents something that is neither philosophically nor methodologically homeopathic, it is one bit of good news for all of us because it has been successful in reproducing a result that provides evidence, according to the current scientific standard, that there is indeed something more than nothing in those potentized substances that we use every day.
John Melnychuck, RSHom (NA), lives and practices in Menlo Park, California
Our Scottish colleagues, Dr. David Reilly, and Morag Taylor, et al. of the Glasgow University Department of Medicine, recently published a trial that finally proves, to the skeptics, that potentized (energetic) medicine, has a quantifiable action. The calculated odds, of twenty-five hundred to one, show that the positive results of the overall study were not due to random fluctuation! While this wasn't a trial of homeopathy per se, it is closely related vis a vis the use of dynamized substances. Its overwhelming success will be a substantial stepping stone to future studies on the efficacy of homeopathy
No comments:
Post a Comment