Dear Sir,
The responses to the article “Treatment of canine atopic dermatitis with a commercial homeopathic remedy: a single blinded, placebo-controlled study” (Can Vet J 2002;43:601–603) by Dr. Femma M. Van As; Dr. Moira Drosdovech, et al; Dr. Carol Kujala; Dr. Rod Jouppi; and Dr. Laura Taylor (Can Vet J 2002;43:908–912) question the validity of the findings that a homeopathic remedy was ineffective in alleviating pruritus.
The writers of the letters claim that homeopathic principles were ignored. They are especially critical of the fact that a mixed-ingredient solution was used, as opposed to a single-ingredient solution. According to homeopathic dogma, therapeutic products consist of solutions diluted to the point where not a single molecule of the original ingredient remains. One must ask, therefore, what is the difference between a single-ingredient solution and a mixed-ingredient solution? Both, when prepared according to homeopathic principles, consist solely of pure water (or water and alcohol).
What good, then, are all the preceding steps — the holistic approach to diagnosis, the adherence to the Law of Similars, and the individualized treatments — if, in the end, every patient receives a solution indistinguishable from plain water by any means of analysis yet developed by scientific means? Before claiming that homeopathy has any merit, it is incumbent on those proposing its superiority to address that question or to provide proof of therapeutic effect. It has been 200 years since Dr. Hahnemann brought his idiosyncratic notions to the world, and in that time, neither the answer nor the proof has been forthcoming (1).