Study defies the most basic tenets of homeopathy

Dear Sir,

The study using the homeopathic remedy for canine atopic dermatitis (Can Vet J 2002;43:601–603) demonstrates a lack of understanding of the basic founding principles of homeopathy. I respectfully add that I was surprised and disappointed that this study was published in a peer-reviewed journal such as the CVJ.

I wonder if a veterinarian formally trained in homeopathy was one of the “peers” in the review process of this paper, for if there had been, it is unlikely that it would have been published, and radical changes to trial design would probably have been suggested.

This study defies the most basic tenets of homeopathy, that is, the use of the law of similars in choosing a remedy, and the use of a minimum dose of a single remedy.

Unlike conventional medicine, in which one looks for what is the same between patients then applies a uniform treatment for that disease; in homeopathy, one looks for what is different between patients. In homeopathy, the treatment approach is individualized, based on the totality of detailed clinical signs that are uniquely expressed, and the whole patient is treated, not just the disease.

In this study, the authors did not look beyond the common sign of pruritus. A veterinary homeopath would discover that one itchy dog may have had pustular eruptions with yellow discharge, was worse with bathing, was timid with strangers, was afraid of loud noises, was chilly, and had increased thirst and cravings to eat dirt, whereas another itchy dog may have had completely normal skin; itching ameliorated by bathing; chronic constipation; a small wart at its anus; a mild, left-sided green nasal discharge; and a history of vaccine reactions.

The above 2 dogs would have required 2 different remedies, possibly different potencies (strengths) and different time-lines to assess response for the second prescription (which could be a different remedy from the first.) In this study, all 21 dogs received the identical formula, which is essentially inappropriate homeopathic prescribing. This is akin to doing a clinical trial using insulin as the drug of choice for pain control in osteoarthritis!

An over-the-counter combination formula of 5 remedies was used in the study by Scott et al. Combination remedies are frowned upon in classical homeopathy, since they lack the “provings” that have been done for single remedies. Remedies mixed together actually form a completely new medicine, whose effects are likely unknown.

The typical blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial is made for the allopathic medical model, where the “problem” is usually reduced down to a single diagnosis and treated uniformly with the same medicine. However, homeopathy, with its highly detailed and individualized approach to the patient's mental, emotional, and physical states, clearly pushes the boundaries of acceptable scientific enquiry in the form of the standard clinical trial. Perhaps it is time for the veterinary profession to stretch the boundaries of its “own mind” and seek creative ways to fairly and accurately assess the merits of an unusual and powerful healing modality, namely, homeopathy.