Scientific study of homeopatic treatment
Homeopathy vs. Ayurveda.vs Allopathyx
[Peter Fraser]
Science and Homoeopathy
Alternative medicine is often criticised by conventional scientists as
completely unscientific. Homoeopathy, since the time of Hahnemann, has been
based on the clear, scientific collection of evidence, and the best homoeopathy
continues to be so. In the case of AIDS a further proving was conducted with a
remedy that came from the
blood of a different person. As the results from this proving were very
similar, it is clear that the picture is of the AIDS nosode
and not that of the person from whom
the blood was taken. In homoeopathy the evidence is given greater weight
than is the prejudice of a certain mind set or scientific paradigm.
One of the major arguments against homoeopathy used by conventional
critics is that the dilutions involved in homoeopathic remedies are so great
that they could not
possibly have any effect. This is true; nevertheless, they do have very
powerful effects. During one of the AIDS provings one
of the provers worked in a laboratory and
agreed to have daily blood tests during the proving. The accompanying
photographs show his blood as seen through a microscope before taking the
remedy and two days
after. In the first picture the erythrocytes (red blood cells) are
normal in shape, size and distribution; in the second one the phenomena of anisocytosis (distortion in the
size of erythrocytes), poikilocytosis
(distortions in the shape of erythrocytes) and stacking are dramatically
obvious. This prover received the remedy in a potency
of 200c.
In other words the original substance had been diluted to one part in
one with four hundred noughts after it. If you took a single atom and diluted
it in all the atoms that
there are in our Galaxy, the Milky Way, you would have a dilution of one
part in one with just seventy noughts after it. Yet in spite of this
unimaginable dilution the
remedy appears to have had an undeniable physical effect on the prover. In fact, provings clearly
show that the effect of remedies can be felt by people who have not taken
the remedy but who are in touch with its energy. Members of an
established group who do not take the remedy often experience exactly the same
symptoms as those members who do.
Treatment for hyperactive children: homeopathy and methylphenidate
compared in a family
[H. Frei (Kinderarzt Laupen Schweiz) and A. Thurneysen]
British Homeopathic Journal (2001) 90, 183–188.
The sharp increase of the prescription of methylphenidate (MPD) in
hyperactive children in recent years is a matter of increasing uneasiness among
professionals, parents
and politicians.
There is little awareness of treatment alternatives. The purpose of this
prospective trial was to assess the efficacy of homeopathy in hyperactive
patients and to compare
it to MPD.
The study was performed in a paediatric practice with conventional and
homeopathic backgrounds.
Children aged 3 – 17 y, conforming to the DSM-IV criteria for attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a Conners
Global Index (CGI/siehe unten)
of 14 or higher were eligible for the study. All of them received an individual
homeopathic treatment. When clinical improvement reached 50%, the parents were
asked to
reevaluate the symptoms. Those who did not
improve sufficiently on homeopathy were changed to MPD, and again evaluated
after 3 months.
115 children (92 boys/23 girls) with a average age of 8.3 years at
diagnosis were included in the study. Prior to treatment the mean CGI was 20.63
(14 - 30), the average
index of the homeopathy group 20.52 and of the MPD-group 20.94. After an
average treatment time of 3.5 months 86 children (75%) had responded to
homeopathy,
reaching a clinical improvement rating of 73% and amelioration of the
CGI of 55%. 25 children (22%) needed MPD; the average duration of homeopathic
(pre-)treatment
in this group was 22 months.
Clinical improvement under MPD reached 65%, the lowering of the CGI 48%.
Three children did not respond to homeopathy nor to MPD, and one left the
study.
In cases where treatment of a hyperactive child is not urgent,
homeopathy is a valuable alternative to MPD. The reported results of
homeopathic treatment appear to be similar to the effects of MPD. Only children
who did not reach the high level of sensory integration for school had to be
changed to MPD. In preschoolers, homeopathy appears in particularl
useful as treatment for ADHD.
Keywords: hyperactive children; ADHD (ADHS.);
homeopathy; methylphendidate
Introduction
The trends in the prevalence of attention defizit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the prescription of methylphenidate (MPD) in
children and adolescents in North America have shown a marked increase during
the past decade.
1,2 Reported prescription rates range from 1.1% in Michigan (children 0
± 19 y), 3.4% in Ontario (students grades 7, 9, 11, 13) to 8 ± 10% in
south-eastern Virginia (students grades 2 ± 5, with a maximum of 18 ± 20% of
grade 5 white boys). The increase does not seem to be limited to the US and
Canada:
In Switzerland, as in many other Western countries, the frequency of the
diagnosis of ADHD and prescription of MPD have also risen remarkably during the
past few years.
Along with this rise comes a concern for more accurate diagnosis of ADHD,
and reports of abuse of MPD which has similarities with cocaine in terms of pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics.
Other problems include noncompliance with frequent dosing and wear-off
or rebound effects.
For parents of hyperactive children the fact that their child is
receiving long-term treatment with a substance that falls under the legislation
for narcotics (Switzerland) is often a cause of major concern. Many of them
refuse such a treatment unless the school exerts extreme pressure. One of the main
social causes for the rise in the prescription of
MPD may be found in the lowering of public education budgets in recent
years, leading to larger school classes in which hyperactive behaviour is less
tolerable. It is not surprising therefore, that professionals seek options in
pharmacotherapy and parents look for alternative treatments, despite the lack
of controlled research on their efficacy
and safety.13 ± 15
The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy of homeopathic
treatment16 ± 18 in ADHD, answering the following questions:
What percentage of children can be sufficiently treated with homeopathy
and need no other medication?
How many need MPD? And how many do not respond to these treatments at
all?
What is the effect of homeopathic treatment and MPD as rated by the
CGI?19 ± 21
How do parents rate clinical improvement, including feedback from
school?
Time horizons: how long is needed to reach an adequate treatment effect
in homeopathy? What was the duration of homeopathic treatment in patients who
finally
received MPD?
Methods
Children between 3 - 17 y conforming to the DSMIV diagnostic criteria
for ADHD were eligible for the study. The diagnostic procedures included
meticulous history taking, a general and neurological examination and an assessment
of the hyperactivity and attention deficit symptoms according to the Conners 10 item rating scale. Patients with
a CGI of 14 or higher were included in the study. If there was any doubt
concerning the diagnosis of ADHD, patients were referred to a child and
adolescent psychiatrist
or psychologist or a paediatric neurologist for further testing (36
children = 31%).
Each child was first treated with homeopathy. To be effective, the
homeopathic medicament has to match the individual symptoms of the patient, ie the symptoms that are
not commonly present in most hyperactive children and therefore
distinguish him from the others. This process of individual adaptation of the
treatment may require some time, and include trials of possible medicaments,
until the optimal effect is reached.
The matching of patient-symptoms and homeopathic remedies was performed
following the procedures of Hahnemann, assisted by a computer-program
(Amokoor24) based on the works of Boenninghausen. The
prescribing technique has been described by the author in earlier publications.
In this trial homeopathic preparations of the following medicaments were
used successfully (number of patients in parenthesis):
Lyc. (12), Calc. (7), Sulph.
(7), Bell. (6), Caust. (6), Phos. (6), Ign. (5), Nux-v. (5), Arg-n. (4), Sep. (4), Lach.
(3), Merc. (3), Puls. (3), Sil. (3), Ars. (2), Staph. (2),
Agar. (1), Bar-c. (1), Bry. (1), Chin. (1), Hep. (1),
Hyos. (1), Nat-m. (1) and Stram.
(1).
All patients received liquid LM-potencies18 (LM 3 to LM 30) every day or
every 2nd day, depending on the severity of their symptoms. Each potency (eg LM 3) was used for 4 weeks, moving on to the next higher
level (eg LM 6) after a treatmentfree
interval of several days to one week. If the child's reaction to the medication
was insufficient (wrong choices usually do not change the hyperactivity
symptoms), the next most similar remedy was prescribed.
Once an adequate response had been reached, the children received the
next higher potency of the same medicine.
For clinical assessment of treatment the parents had to report the
changes observed in every symptom they initially reported, ie
hyperactivity `considerably improved', `slightly improved', `unchanged' or
`worse'. After reporting the changes of every individual symptom they were
asked to summarize the overall clinical improvement as a percentage. When the
overall amelioration reached 50% or more, the treatment was reassessed by the
CGI rating scale. The timing of this reassessment thus was individual,
depending
on the time required to find the correct homeopathic medicine. Patients
who did not reach sufficient clinical improvement, or whose behaviour remained
unacceptable despite
a certain response to homeopathy were changed to MPD after reevaluation.
The point at which a patient was
deemed a treatment *DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD:
(1) presence of either six symptoms of inattention or six symptoms of
hyperactivity – impulsivity, which have persisted for at least 6 months to a
degree that is maladaptive
and inconsistent with development level;
(2) presence of some symptoms that caused impairment before age 7 y;
(3) presence of some impairment from symptoms in two or more settings (school
or work and at home);
(4) clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social,
academic, or occupational functioning;
(5) the symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course of a
pervasive developmental disorder, schizophrenia, or other psychotic disorder
and are not better accounted
for by another mental disorder (eg mood
disorder, anxiety disorder, dissociative disorder, or a personality disorder).
Hyperactive children: homeopathy vs
methylphenidate
Failure thus was individual, dependent on environmental tolerance for
his behaviour. Many children had a long-term homeopathic treatment, before a
crisis (usually school pressure) made MPD necessary.
Two weeks after the initiation of MPD-treatment, the CGI was determined
to distinguish responders from non-responders. The final evaluation of this
treatment by CGI followed 3 months after the optimal adjustment of MPD-dosage.
Patients
One hundred and fifteen children (92 boys, 23 girls) conformed to the
eligibility criteria. Their average age at diagnosis was 8.3 y. In the
homeopathy group 76% of the patients were boys, 24% girls, with a average age
of 7.9 y at diagnosis. In the MPD group 92% were boys, 8% girls, with a average
age of 9.6 y.
Non-responders and drop-outs were all boys with a average age of 9.0 y.
Results
Treatment modalities in ADHD patients
86 patients (75%) responded sufficiently to homeopathy, and 25 (22%)
needed MPD. Only three patients (3%) did not respond neither to homeopathy nor
to MPD.
One child left the study.
Comparison of response to homeopathy
and MPD
The mean value of the CGI ratings of all patients prior to treatment was
20.63, the homeopathy group 20.52, and the MPD group 20.94. During homeopathic
treatment
the mean CGI rating fell to 9.27 corresponding to an amelioration of
55%, and with MPD to 10.96, corresponding to an amelioration of 48%.
The CGI prior to change to MPD was determined only in a small group of
patients. It reached an average value of 13.0 which corresponds to an
amelioration of 37%.
Clinical improvement ratings
Clinical improvement ratings by parents in homeopathy treated children
were 73%, and with MPD 65%. Most of the patients who had eventually received
MPD had
a treatment effect from homeopathy, but the mean clinical improvement
was 43%, considerably lower than in children who responded well to homeopathy.
Time horizons
The average time needed to reach an optimal homeopathic treatment effect
was 3.5 months (range 1 ± 16 months, Figure 4), the mean duration of
homeopathic
treatment in those patients who finally needed MPD was 22 months (range
4 ± 62 months, Figure 5).
Discussion
In an earlier placebo-controlled study, Lamont showed, that homeopathy
is an effective treatment in hyperactive children. Instead of long discussions
whether or not homeopathy is placebo, its effects should be assessed by the
same scales that are applied in mainstream medicine. In a situation where
alternative treatments are frequently used, it is essential to know what can be
expected of them. It is surprising that 75% of the studied children reached a
satisfactory amelioration with homeopathy in a
family setting. Conversely most children who needed MPD, did so because
of school pressure and not the situation at home.
The observed parent ratings of clinical improvement and the lowering of
the CGI under homeopathy were slightly better than under MPD. This finding may
be due to the
short duration of action of MPD (4 h in the normal and 8 h in the retard
form32), which often leads to difficult times at noon and in the evening
(observation of the authors). Therefore it is mainly the school-situation that
profits from MPD.
The difference between clinical amelioration and CGI ratings can be
explained by the fact that every amelioration in a hyperactive child is an
enormous relief for family and school.
The higher clinical improvement ratings reflect this relief, while the
detailed 10-item ratings with the CGI show a more realistic picture of what has
really been achieved.
It may be argued that all children who received MPD also had a
homeopathic pre-treatment, and that they may therefore react better to MPD than
children without homeopathic pre-treatment. The authors do not think that.
Hyperactive children: homeopathy vs methylphenidate
this is the case, because in the treatment-free intervals between the
homeopathic medicines, most children show a reappearance of the hyperactivity
symptoms.
This finding favours the impression, that homeopathy is, like MPD, a
palliative treatment. Long-term follow-up studies over several years would be
necessary
to settle the question as to, whether or not a curative effect can be
expected.
A problem in homeopathy is the delay until the optimal amelioration is
reached. Since it is necessary to make an individualized prescription, it is
difficult to treat in a situation where an improvement has to be immediate. The
choice of the correct medication is dependent on the individuality of the
symptoms, if a patient only has the `standard symptoms' of ADHD and nothing
peculiar, the homeopathic physician may have to make `therapeutic trials' to
find the correct medicine. The administration of a wrong remedy usually does
not change anything, while giving the right one leads to a clear, substantial
improvement within 4 weeks. If a child has not responded by then,
it is unlikely that it will, and MPD treatment may be considered at this
time.
Major advantages of homeopathy over MPD are the easy administration
(once every day or once every second day), a continuous treatment effect over
24 h, no side effects except for a possible short initial aggravation, and no
abuse potential. For many parents this last point is the most important
concern. At preschool-age, when MPD has many side effects, homeopathy may be
the first choice, as well as for students, who do not need to have an immediate
relief.
Finally, there is an extremely low number of nonresponders
if both methods are available (3%).
Conners Global Index
|
Bewerten Sie die
Eigenschaften Ihres Kindes anhand des unten |
|
|
0 = gar nicht, 1 = ein wenig, 2 = ziemlich stark, 3 = sehr stark |
|
|
Unruhig oder übermäßig aktiv |
|
|
Stört andere Kinder |
|
|
Erregbar, impulsiv |
|
|
Bringt angefangene Dinge nicht zu einem Ende, |
|
|
Ständig zappelig |
|
|
Unaufmerksam, leicht abgelenkt |
|
|
Erwartungen müssen umgehend
erfüllt werden, |
|
|
Weint leicht und häufig |
|
|
Schneller und ausgeprägter
Stimmungswechsel |
|
|
Wutausbrüche, explosives,
unvorhersagbares Verhalten |
|
|
|
|
[Fritz Johann Madel]
http://ir.dut.ac.za/handle/10321/1835
There is, however, evidence that Homoepathic, remedies
can also effect cells in vitro (Chatteerjee et al,
(1992:279)
demonstrated the effects of a nosode on a cell
culture (in vitro) when they administered Leucocidine
(potentised Staphylococcus aureus)
to healthy human leucocytes in a test tube.
It was noticed that the leucocytes had degranulated
more significantly compared to the control group.
Similar research carried out by Belon (1992:339) showed that the administration of potentised
histamine to human basophils, had a significant effect
in inhibiting Basophil degranulation.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum