Homeopathy: Science or Myth

Bill Gray, MD

List price: $14.95
Our price: $14.95

This book presents a strong, user-friendly case for homeopathy as a modern, even futuristic, medical science. He reviews research and describes homeopathy as having a cutting edge paradigm of healing that is a 21st century science. New theories on the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines are provided.

Book Review

[From Homeopathy Today September 2001]

Reviewed by Chris Kurz, PhD

Bill GRAY, an accomplished homeopath, has written a book about science and homeopathy. It is "intended for the skeptic," who demands scientific proof of homeopathy. If my experience is anything like Bill Gray's, he must have sometimes felt at a loss to reply confidently and from a position of knowledge to questions like "What scientific proof is there for homeopathy?" and "How does it work?" In this context I imagine that Bill Gray's book might have been written under the motto: "Everything I always wanted to tell those skeptics and never knew where to look it up." This rationale is sound. Can the same be said for the book's scientific content? Before giving you my opinion on the science, let me lose a few words on the structure of the book.

The author tackles the task in eight chapters, of which chapter 1 and chapter 7 are devoted to explaining the principles of homeopathy and giving a brief glimpse into several remedy archetypes. I found the sometimes striking case reports throughout those chapters very illustrative, even moreso to someone yet unaccustomed to the powers of our healing art. Chapters 2 through 6 deal with the clinical evidence and the scientific foundation. In Chapter 8 we are treated to a brief look at future challenges to homeopathy and their implications. Also included are a short glossary, a bibliography of references cited in the text, and an index. All said and told, this fills the extent of 190 paperback pages.
As I see it--and Gray seems to follow the same approach--scientific exploration of homeopathy can be roughly divided into three areas of research:

Is there a therapeutic effect of homeopathy, which exceeds the placebo effect?
What is the active principle in a homeopathic remedy?
How do homeopathic remedies act in the organism to promote healing?

These three questions form a pyramid of increasing complexity. Before one proceeds to the next, the previous one needs to be answered. For example, there is no point in trying to isolate the active principle in a homeopathic remedy unless we already agree that homeopathic remedies do have therapeutic powers. Also, before we understand this principle, we can't ask how the body responds to it. Furthermore, the research methods evoked to solve the three puzzles are different for each one. The first question is within the realm of clinical medical research. Physics, chemistry and related fields concern themselves with question two, and the bio-sciences are called upon in the third question.

I was pleased to find that Bill Gray follows this order. Chapter 2 is a summary and synopsis of clinical research in the field of homeopathy. He discusses a studies giving their to topic. (e.g. Migraine headaches, sprained ankles, diarrhea, etc.) and outcome (i.e., the percentage of success and the statistical significance). For anyone used to reading clinical studies, this is far too little information to judge the quality of the study and hence its significance. Still, there is enough information to give you the gist of it, and the interested reader can always look up the reference in the back and ,take a trip to the nearest library.

What is the upshot? Simply put, homeopathy works. This is the necessary conclusion anyone with an unprejudiced mind has to reach after reading this part of the book. There will always be the demand for more clinical evidence, but it comes mostly from people who cannot accept a phenomenon when they are confronted with it.

Chapters 3, 4, and 5 are where most of the scientific content is found and, at the same time, what I find the most troublesome. There are minor points like the number of succussions used in remedy preparation (Hahnemann demands 10 strokes, not 40 as the book states).

Another one is Avogadro's limit, which is commonly held to be at a potency of 24X or 12C. In fact, however, this depends on the ratio of the molecular weights of solute to solvent (this little observed fact transforms Avogadro's limit into a fuzzy transition area ranging anywhere from a 2OX to a 26X). But besides those, the evaluation of research presented and the conclusions drawn from it are where Gray and I part company.

The thematic focus in this area is on so-called clusters, which are ordered collections of water molecules. Work done by Shui Yin-Lo is currently very much in vogue, and is heralded in homeopathic circles as a breakthrough in the scientific explanation of homeopathy. From this perspective I can understand why Gray included it in the book. Unfortunately, there are several issues with Lo's work which diminish its credibility and scientific value.

Through several references, Shui Yin-Lo, in his papers from 1996, is portrayed as the main perpetrator and discoverer of clusters in water, which he calls "IE crystals." Unfortunately, the notion of clusters is anything but a novel idea; it ranges back to the second half of the previous century. What Gray refers to as 11 "quantum electrodynamic calculations" performed by Lo is in fact 19th century knowledge of electromagnetism. To be absolutely clear about it: Lo offers nothing in terms of novel theory, and the experiments he describes are basic measurements, which, to me and others, yield very unconvincing results. Yes, there is cluster fornmation in water. But not just in water, in many other gases, liquids and solids as well-science has known about it for decades. Research in this area is, in fact, very active. The mere fact that neither Lo nor Gray acknowledge this work is telltale.

Bill Gray, although with the best of intentions, bases his conclusions on shaky evidence and bends established science to make the explanation of everything homeopathic come out to be "quantum electrodynamic." Mind you, I am convinced that the author has unconsciously been led by his sincere personal conviction and hence cannot be charged guilty of knowingly deceiving the reader. But should not the piloting of an airplane be left as much to a trained pilot as the evaluation of science should be left to an experienced scientist? Both lead to ill effects when performed by unskilled hands.

Gray says that "Without explanations homeopathy will never achieve the mainstream status it deserves." Maybe, maybe not. This sentence should, however, in no case be perverted to be interpreted as "Let's get hold of an explanation quickly so that homeopathy can join its mainstream brethren."

There are many phenomena in homeopathic research that defy an explanation. Gray lists several of them, such as the excellent experiments by P. Endler on tadpoles. The reader will find other examples in the chapter on the interaction of homeopathic remedies with living organisms. It is only when the author tries to sell us the idea of electromagnetism as the answer to everything that I must distance myself from his view again. Clearly electromagnetic radiation affects our body. Light, heat, a suntan, and food in the microwave are examples of this. But there are many other things which affect us too; electromagnetic radiation is just one thing among many. There are also problems with the electromagnetic explanation. A body is losing energy when emitting radiation.

Therefore, a remedy would need an impossibly large store of energy to be able to surround itself with a radiation field for such a long time.

As a collection of phenomenological evidence the book has merit-not, however, as an attempt to explain homeopathy in scientific terms.

Where, then, should we look for a scientific basis? There is no use in repeating what has already been said elsewhere. The most important work in this area is, in my opinion, Scientific Foundations of Homeopathy by G. Resch and V. Gutmann [Barthel & Barthel Publishing, 1987]. Although it is has been 14 years since, very little has been published which is of comparable depth and displays a similar understanding of the breadth and depth of homeopathy. There also ought to have been a reference to the work done by Karl W. Kratky, among whose numerous publications I would cite, "The generalized simile principle as a joint framework of allopathy and homeopathy" [In: C. Bornoroni (Ed.), OMEOMED 92, Proceedings Book, Editrice Compositori, Bologna, 1993 (pp.49-54)]. Among Kratky's contributions to non-linear dynamics I would also underline a computational model of homeopathy, which he has developed and published elsewhere. The fact that the author cites only work connected to the current hype in homeopathic circles suggests to me that he is not sufficiently versed with overlapping areas of science (physical chemistry, chaos and non-linear dynamics, solid state physics, etc.) in which truly interesting and relevant work has been and is being done.

The research presented in the book is focused on water and its properties but homeopathic remedies are rarely in touch with pure water. They are either succussed in a water/alcohol mixture or triturated with lactose. In any case, at the end we impregnate tiny sugar pellets with the solution. These tiny pellets maintain their efficacy for many decades, no water involved. How can we confidently attribute the working of homeopathy to water alone? Has anyone tried making remedies without water, using, say, anhydrous ethanol? Research in this area is just beginning to bud.

What is needed at this stage of the game is an open, unprejudiced mind. We should not jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Like the experiment I suggested in the previous paragraph, there are many others we need to perform, repeat, and confirm first. It should be our primary goal to establish homeopathy as a viable field of scientific research. Only then will useful results be forthcoming. Anything which portrays homeopathy as shady science and a field for half-scientists does a great disservice to this cause. Here is what I wish were the conclusion of a book with the title Homeopathy, Science or Myth: -It is well established that homeopathy has a therapeutic effect beyond the placebo effect.
--Homeopathy is not in conflict with any law of nature, and there is no a priori reason why research should not be pursued into this field.
--There are many interesting, observable, and repeatable phenomena in and around homeopathy which provide fertile ground for scientific investigation.
--As of yet, we have no idea how homeopathy may be explained.

Summing up, Bill Gray has done a good job of showing to everybody what homeopathy can do. He has compiled convincing clinical evidence which shows in a compelling way that homeopathy has a clinical effect beyond the placebo effect. While Gray succeeded in the clinical arena, he falls short in the scientific one. The book tries to build its case on shaky grounds and misses other important areas of science. Therefore I cannot attest that the book reached its ambitious goal of giving scientific proof of homeopathy.

Dana Ullman's Natural Treatment Protocols

Supplements & Herbs

Courses

Software

eBooks

Audio

Video / DVD

Gifts

Homeopathy: Science or Myth

Bill Gray, MD

Book Review

Related products:

Related categories:

HELP

ABOUT HES

Homeopathic Educational Services