Early last year about half a million sites made reference to “homœopathy/homeopathy” and “flu”. At the height of the recent so called swine flu “pandemic” this number increased to over one and a half million. Interestingly, many sites quoted the success of homœopathy during the 1918-19 flu epidemic, where homœopathy’s success rate was spectacular and highlighted its benefits in epidemic diseases.

From the time of Samuel Hahnemann to the present day homœopathy has scored over conventional allopathic medicine in the treatment of epidemics. Examples are listed at the end.

Besides treating epidemics, homœopaths have used remedies successfully for over 200 years to prevent disease, often of epidemic proportions. It is called homœoprophylaxis. Samuel Hahnemann used it routinely in his practice. The first recorded example was in the 1799 scarlet fever epidemic where he used the homœopathic remedy Belladonna to successfully prevent the disease in his patients. Further examples are listed at the end.

However, homœopathy does have its critics. Certain people are becoming rattled by homœopathy’s success and must be feeling threatened if the measures being taken are anything to go by.

An upsurge in negative publicity has meant that while a few internet sites were disparaging in the early days we now see over 150,000 sites where “sceptics” are trying to put down homœopathy. These are people who invariably have never used homœopathy but set out to condemn it. However, they say “any publicity is good publicity”.

On the good news front the New Zealand Medical Journal recently published the results of a survey on the use of homœopathy in New Zealand. It was conducted in doctors’ waiting rooms; 65% of participants had used homœopathy, and 92% of these stated that homœopathy had helped them. The survey shows homœopathy is thriving in New Zealand. Hats off to the NZMJ for going ahead and publishing this survey.

A previous editorial stated that not one homœopathic remedy has ever been withdrawn from use in the 200 years homœopathy has been practised. Homœopathy has stood the test of time and is in a period of resurgence.

Monty Firmin

 Examples of homœopathic treatment of disease in epidemics::
1813. The retreating army of Napoleon brought with it an epidemic of typhus. The mortality rate under conventional treatment was 30% while under homœopathic care the rate was 1%.

In the 1830-32 cholera epidemic, deaths under conventional treatment were between 40% and 80% depending on the information source. On the other hand, ten London homœopathic hospitals reported mortality at 9%, Bavaria reported a rate of 7% and the Imperial Russian Council reported 10% mortality under homœopathy.

1847. Typhoid fever outbreak in Ireland. The mortality rate for conventional care was 14%, for homœopathic care it was 2%.

1854. The London cholera epidemic had a mortality rate of 59% under conventional care, while under homœopathic care the rate was 17%.

In the 1850s there were several epidemics of yellow fever in the USA with reported conventional mortality rates of between 15% to 85%. Homœopaths reported rates between 5% to 7%.

1862-64. Diphtheria outbreak in USA. The mortality rate for conventional care was 84% while for homœopathic care it was 16%.

1878. Yellow fever in New Orleans. The mortality rate under conventional care was 50% while 2,000 cases treated homœopathically had 5.6% mortality.

1918-19. The Spanish flu outbreak was well documented in the USA, with medical records of hospitals across the country consistently showed a mortality rate above 28% for those treated conventionally, while those treated homœopathically had a rate of just over 1%.

1930s. During a smallpox epidemic in the USA, Dr W. L. Bonnell treated many patients who had smallpox without losing one, while the mortality rate was 20% in those treated conventionally.

Examples of homœopathy used to prevent disease:
1880s onwards. Dr H. C. Allen, USA, for 25 years gave a homœopathic remedy to hundreds of his patients during diphtheria outbreaks and did not record one case of diphtheria in those treated.

1902. Smallpox epidemic in USA. Homœoprophylaxis used on 2800 people with 14 cases of smallpox.

1910s-1950s. Dr A. H. Grimmer gave a homœopathic remedy to thousands who were exposed to poliomyelitis through many epidemics over a period of forty years. He studied some 30,000 treated patients during this period and not one patient developed polio.

1930s. Dr W. L. Bonnell, USA, protected 300 patients with a homœopathic remedy during an outbreak of smallpox and did not have one case of smallpox in those treated.

1935 onwards, Dr Dorothy Shepherd, England, gave a homœopathic remedy to hundreds of her young patients who had been in contact with a carrier during whooping cough outbreaks, and not one of these children developed the disease.

1957 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 40,000 people were given a homœopathic remedy during a poliomyelitis epidemic and not one of those treated developed polio.

In August 1974 in Brazil there was a severe epidemic of meningitis. Out of 18,000 children who were given a homœopathic remedy only 4 children got the disease.

1998. On the basis of the 1974 trial, the Brazilian government funded a larger study: 65,000 people were given a homœopathic remedy, and 4 suffered from meningococcal infection over the following 12 months.

2005. India had a Japanese encephalitis epidemic. Over 200,000 people were treated with a homœopathic remedy in the affected areas. On a one-to-one follow up of those treated, 3 people who had received the remedy contracted the disease.

2007-08. Cuba has a yearly leptospirosis epidemic. Despite a vaccination programme, thousands get the disease and many die each year. In 2007 and again in 2008 some 2.4 million people in the affected area were given a homœopathic remedy. The number of confirmed cases was below 10 in any month, and there were no deaths.

How often have we read in the literature of experienced homœopaths saying that “the seemingly indicated remedy failed to act”. Was it because the “totality of symptoms” approach to finding the remedy did not work, either due to the original cause of the disease not being sufficiently considered or due to a continuing block to cure, brought about by an exciting or maintaining cause.

Our late editor, Bruce Barwell, in his first editorial in the July 1997 Homœopathica said, “What do I mean by Hahnemannian homœopathy? I mean prescribing a medicine made according to the directions of an official homœopathic pharmacopœia selected after considering all the symptoms in the case created by disease, with almost exclusive emphasis on its cause and those symptoms which are striking, unusual and exceptional.”

In Aphorism 5 of the Organon, Hahnemann introduces causation as a component in putting together a complete case.

In Aphorism 7 he says in a footnote that it is possible if you remove the exciting or maintaining cause, where it exists, the indisposition may cease spontaneously. Even if the problem does not cease we need to remove the maintaining causes, both physical and non-physical, that block the well selected remedy from doing its work. Unless the cause is first removed, cure is unlikely.

If a situation is continuing you may have both a causation and a maintaining cause or aggravation. If the person is removed from the situation and finds their illness is reduced dramatically then it clearly is an aggravation. If the situation is stopped and the illness remains at a heightened level then you clearly have causation.

If the disease starts or is dramatically increased by a particular situation, you have rubrics in the repertory under “ailments from” that refer. Also “never well since” rubrics cover causation and can be utilised.

It is often possible using these rubrics to prescribe a remedy that fits the causation and yet does not have many of the other symptoms in the remedy picture.

Sometimes it is possible to prescribe a remedy “with almost exclusive emphasis on its cause and those symptoms which are striking, unusual and exceptional”.

At other times the remedy can be selected using Boenninghausen’s location, sensation, modalities, concomitants, with the causation added to these.

Monty Firmin

A bold plan is implemented: the people are given a homœopathic remedy at the beginning of the season. Few people catch the disease and none die.

Cuba implemented this plan in 2007. Cuba has a yearly leptospirosis epidemic. It happens during the hurricane season when there is flooding and water pollution. Many are left homeless, and severe damage is done to sanitary and health systems.

Leptospirosis is an infectious bacterial disease transmitted to humans from rats (and other animals). It is caused by bacteria of the genus Leptospira. In humans it causes a wide range of symptoms including high fever, severe headache, chills, muscle aches and vomiting, and may include jaundice, red eyes, abdominal pain, diarrhoea or a rash. Left untreated the patient can develop kidney damage, meningitis, liver failure and respiratory distress.

Up until 2007 a leptospirosis vaccine had been distributed. During that year a sharp rise in the leptospirosis epidemic occurred in three provinces of the eastern region of Cuba, causing the authorities considerable concern. The authorities produced a homœopathic remedy using the four circulating strains of leptospirosis. As a preventative, two doses of the remedy were administered 7 to 9 days apart to some 2.4 million people in the affected area. It was a massive undertaking, with an estimated 95% uptake.

Two weeks later there was a dramatic decrease in reported cases and no subsequent deaths of hospitalised patients. The number of confirmed cases remained at very low levels for the rest of the season, defying the usual upward trend of the epidemic as the season progressed. In 2008 the programme was repeated at the start of the season, with no deaths and less than ten cases in any month.

Dr Conception Campa Huergo and her team at the Cuban Carlos J Finlay Institute are to be congratulated for having the vision, courage and belief in homœopathy to do what homœopaths have known since Hahnemann first used it in a scarlet fever epidemic in 1799 - homœoprophylaxis works.

Monty Firmin

Sir William Osler (1849-1919) was a Canadian-born British physician and prominent teacher, a revered professor of medicine whose greatest contribution to medicine was to insist that students learned from seeing and talking to patients. He once said he hoped his tombstone would say, “He brought medical students into the wards for bedside teaching.”

On a number of occasions he declared that “no one individual had done more good to the medical profession than Samuel Hahnemann.” Another quote of his was, “Fortunately for medicine, some hundred and fifty years ago Hahnemann appeared.” Also, “I fear that we may return to the state of polypharmacy, the emancipation from which has been the ‘sole’ gift of Hahnemann and his followers.”

While he had praise for Hahnemann he was never comfortable with the theory of homœopathy, but often counselled his students to be tolerant. In the 1880s he enjoined new medical graduates to show equanimity and to “restrain your indignation when you find your pet parson has triturates of the 1000th potentiality in his waistcoat pocket. Don’t shout at the parson, but the theory is fair game.”

Later he was quoted as saying, “Our homeopathic brothers pursue very seriously the scientific study of disease.” Also, “The original grievous mistake was ours - to quarrel with our brothers over infinitesimals was a most unwise and stupid thing to do.”

Throughout, his admiration for principles expressed in Hahnemann’s Organon was clearly evident in his teachings.
• The individual, not the disease, is the entity. There are no diseases . . . only sick people.
• It is much more important to know what sort of patient has a disease than what sort of disease a patient has.
• The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.
• Variability is the law of life, and as no two faces are the same, so no two bodies are alike.
• No two individuals react and behave alike under the abnormal conditions which we know as disease.
• The physician must listen attentively, patiently, and with sympathetic interest to all the patient has to say and must observe how he expresses himself, not only in words but in his overall behaviour in speech and gesture.
• There is no more difficult art to acquire than the art of observation, and for some men it is quite difficult to record an observation in brief and plain language.
• Observe, record, tabulate, communicate. Use your five senses. Learn to see, learn to hear, learn to feel, learn to smell.If the physician fails to bear these precepts in mind, he may well miss valuable and sometimes invaluable clues to the selection of the appropriate medicine which can mean the difference between ultimate success or failure of treatment.

As homœopaths we still follow these tenets in the successful practice of homœopathic medicine. Can we say the same of the allopathic doctors?

Monty Firmin

“Here are a few of the famous people, past and present, who have been supporters and patrons of homeopathy - Great Britain’s royal family, Goethe, Charles Dickens, Pope Pius X, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, John D. Rockefeller Sr., William James, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Daniel Webster, Henry James, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and performers Jack Nicholson, Suzanne Sommers, Tina Turner, Dizzie Gillespie, and others. Even Sir William Osler, credited as being the father of modern conventional medicine, said of homœopaths of his day, ‘Our homeopathic brothers pursue very seriously the scientific study of disease.’ ”

Homœopathy is once again steadily regaining popularity around the World as an effective branch of medicine. It is non-toxic, non-addictive, economical, safe during pregnancy and in childhood, without side effects and easily administered.

The United Kingdom National Health Service surveyed Scottish doctors prescriptions, finding 49% of doctors had prescribed homœopathy over a recent two year period.

The World Health Organization in a preliminary 2005 report said homœopathy was “the second leading system of medicine for primary health care in the World and the fastest growing.”

Even James Randi, referred to a number of times in this journal, has got cold feet over the effectiveness or otherwise of homœopathy. He is the professional magician and arch sceptic who famously offered a million dollars for proof homœopathy works after a BBC program on homœopathy. He recently withdrew his offer, claiming ill health, after having approved a comprehensive trial that was about to begin and was to be monitored by international doctors at a major hospital. His personal participation wasn’t necessary, if successful he only had to write the cheque. He should have taken a homœopathic remedy.

Here in New Zealand the number of registered homœopaths has steadily increased over the last 20 years, including a number of doctors and other health professionals.

Homœopathy is effective and safe. In 200 years not one homœopathic remedy has been recalled.

Homœopathy is here to stay, and the reason is succinctly summed up in the words of renowned violinist Yehudi Menuhin: “Homœopathy is one of the few medical specialties which carries no penalties - only benefits.”

Monty Firmin

This extract is from his first editorial in the July 1997 Homoeopathica.

“Homœopathica has the rights to use articles from several current journals, and the Society’s reference library is a treasure vault of gems of homœopathic writings of the past that are still of immense value today.

The Society’s constitution emphasises that its aim is to promote especially the practice of pure homœopathy - which I understand to mean Hahnemannian homœopathy. What do I mean by Hahnemannian homœopathy? I mean prescribing a medicine made according to the directions of an official homœopathic pharmacopœia selected after considering all the symptoms in the case created by disease, with almost exclusive emphasis on its cause and those symptoms which are striking, unusual and exceptional.

The justification for this interpretation is Articles 5 and 153 of Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine. While it is true that the Society sells books conveying the views of diverse schools and approaches to homœopathic prescribing, its primary focus is on the promotion of the system set out in the Organon and is only prepared to support financially and otherwise anything conducive to this aim.

The Society has no wish to be forever looking backward and to be unprogressive, but its aim is to promote a system of medicine based on clearly perceivable rational principles, and material furthering this objective may be found in abundance in the past.

Contributions from readers are very welcome.”

This is as relevant today as when it was written.

Monty Firmin

Use this knowledge - add symptoms peculiar to the patient and differing in some way from those of other cases of the same disease. These are the distinguishing symptoms. Include sensations and modalities to find the curative remedy.

In acute cases this approach allows for a more rapid assessment, distinguishing remedies from each other and in a very large number of cases finding a closely similar, if not the most similar remedy.

An article in this issue, “Homœopathy in the home”, uses disease names and distinguishing symptoms in this way to assist in selecting the remedy based on clinical experience.

In cases of disease that run a more or less chronic course, taking the case fully and carefully is paramount. It is then necessary to match the patient’s symptom picture with the remedy symptom picture. Include medical tests such as blood or urine analysis, etc, to provide additional symptoms, which sometimes point unerringly to the curative remedy. O. A. Julian provided many symptoms based on his clinical experiences of such tests.

Location of organ needs to be included in the evaluation. This can be achieved with remedies listed under a disease or condition as confirmed by clinical experience.

Clinical experiences broaden our knowledge in two ways. Firstly they confirm or develop individual symptoms, as mentioned above with O. A. Julian. These symptoms are often distinguishing symptoms. On the other hand they give us successful cases which when listed under disease names provide a convenient means of recording the cases.

Use all this experience in arriving at the curative remedy. Good homœopathy is built on good clinical experience.

Monty Firmin

President of the New Zealand Homœopathic Society Inc for the last thirteen years, Bruce’s life was claimed by a heart attack, at home, a few months before he had planned to retire from his practice and concentrate on writing a book about his homœopathic experiences.

Born in Taumarunui - his father was a farming advisor - the family later lived in Whakatane and New Plymouth. Uncertain of a career direction he settled on journalism while in Wellington, beginning with the Truth newspaper, then in Auckland worked for the New Zealand Herald and then Soil and Health magazine, later back to Wellington for the Listener, as chief sub-editor, finally returning to Auckland and the Auckland Star.

In the late 1960s while researching for an article on alternative medicines he encountered homœopathy, became interested, and in a very short while it completely absorbed him.

He embarked on serious study, spending time in India in hospitals and clinics there, learning from their masters.

He returned to Auckland in 1973 where he soon set up his clinic, and over the next 35 years devoted his life to helping and healing patients, always learning more, and spreading interest in, and knowledge of, homœopathy throughout the country.

He was the backbone of the Society, lecturing and producing pamphlets, becoming President in 1995 and Editor of Homœopathica, the Society’s magazine for the last eleven years.

He also devised and conducted study courses for both home and family users and those who wished to progress towards becoming practitioners.

As the number of people setting up in practice mushroomed in the 1980s he became deeply concerned with the need for basic medical knowledge, ability in homœopathic prescribing and professional integrity, and so he helped to institute and administer the Society’s register of practitioners in 1983.

Several teaching colleges started up, each having their own qualifications and registration procedures, and so in the late 1990s he was part of negotiations for the practitioners to produce their own register, the New Zealand Council of Homœopaths, which would amalgamate the previous factions.

He assisted in producing the emerging New Zealand Qualifications Authority as it affected homœopathic unit standards, and teaching institutions. He made several submissions to Parliament on the Medicines Act and the Health and Disabilities commission. He worked hard then, and several times in later years, whenever the position of homœopathic medicines was raised in proposed legislation. He opposed recent trends to mixtures of remedies as quick and easy solutions, and herbal mixtures, containing one or two remedies, being described as homœopathic.

There is a tendency world wide for alternatives, including homœopathy, to attract imaginative and quirky adherents. These were anathema to Bruce, whose conviction that homœopathy is based on sound scientific principles, which will eventually be proven beyond doubt by scientific research, led him to using his editorship of Homœopathica to spread this message.

Continually seeking out and appraising new medicines, and any research which could help to confound sceptics, was second nature to him. His knowledge and experience contributed to his zeal for eschewing sloppiness, in both thinking and practice, in order to protect and proclaim the truths of homœopathy.

To his patients, and those who knew him, he was a kind, generous, thoughtful man, always anxious to help, who spoke only when he had something to say, with a sense of humour (at times mischievous). He loved his family, adored his grandchildren, and enjoyed and cared for the health of pets, particularly cats and tropical fish, developing remedies for them.

His other interests included music (classical, medieval and modern), botany - including cultivating herbs and developing remedies from them - and bead work, making interesting and individual jewellery for loved ones. He had an interest in art, from all regions of the world, spoke 15 languages, all self taught - including Chinese - and enjoyed cooking, with an interest in ingredients of different ethnic regional dishes.

He is survived by his wife Ruth, her daughters Jay and Susan, and grandchildren, and his two sons, Ezra and Max and their children.

To others who knew of him, read his work, or attended his lectures, he appeared a more aloof character, at times almost gruff, who did not suffer fools gladly, and whose intellect and authority could over-awe - although unintentionally. His literary skills ensured a well constructed and rounded presentation of his subject, usually interspersed with asides which emphasized the humanity of the man. He met challenges with dignity, and his integrity was unquestioned.

He had, within his amazing mind, such depth of knowledge, and wisdom, that those who now mourn his passing will continue to miss the ability to tap into it, and share his thoughts.

The quote below, from the November 2005 issue of Homœopathica, gives us a glimpse of the man, his spirit, conviction and zeal.

The greater world of homœopathy has no good reason to tolerate this weird stuff (way out new age type notions), the New Zealand Homœopathic Society has no policy of letting it flourish unchallenged, and I as president of the Society and editor of this journal, pledge to do all that I can to stop it. Homœopathy is a branch of medicine. It has as much right to be regarded as a science as any other branch of medicine, nothing should taint this position.

Eileen Boghurst

Bruce Barwell

Died Thursday 29th May 2008

On hearing the news of Bruce’s sudden death of a heart attack, my first thoughts were of deep sympathy for his wife Ruth, family and friends, and the many who were both his patients and his friends.

This issue of the magazine was produced and edited by him and printed just prior to his death.

Bruce was a colossus in New Zealand homoeopathy - although he would have shrunk in horror at the epitaph.

In acknowledging this, we who remain must ensure that the Society continues to promote his conviction in the validity of Hahnemannian /Boenninghausen practices and scientific principles in a way that reflects them truly .

As the tide of the Society ebbs, the resources of the deep sea remain, and as the tide turns again, we must ensure it will bring as clear a reflection of Bruce’s aims and ideals as it is able to produce.

A full obituary will be published later.

Eileen Boghurst
Past president / membership secretary

EDITORIAL - Who can be called “Doctor”?

Recently a homœopath with an Indian BHMS degree (Bachelor of Homœopathic Medicine and Surgery) was said to be in breach of New Zealand law by the professional organisation to which he belonged because he used the title Doctor.

This raises the issue of interpretation of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act relating to the use of the title Doctor. The Medical Council of New Zealand, in a publication and in correspondence, appears to hold that it is a legal necessity that a “doctor” who is not a registered medical practitioner as defined by the Act must take every possible measure to ensure even a dimwit does not mistake him/her for a registered practitioner.

On the other hand sharp legal minds I have asked about this have another view. Their opinion is that any prosecution pursuing the line of the medical council’s interpretation would fail, the crucial point being that for a prosecution to succeed it would be necessary to prove the person using the title “Doctor” was doing so with the deliberate intention of the deception that they were a bona fide registered practitioner. It might take an actual case to clarify the matter was one view. Just look at all the Doctors in the Acupuncture section of the Yellow Pages phone books!

I raised this issue previously in an editorial in September 2006, which is reproduced here:

A recent publication of the Medical Council of New Zealand gives the Council’s interpretation of the law relating to the use of the title “doctor”.

Of course all sorts of people call themselves “doctor” - dentists, chiropractors, and people with an academic qualification such as a PhD or DSc - as well as MB, ChBs, etc.
However, the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act of 2003 states that it is an offence to use names, words, titles, abbreviations or descriptions implying that a person is a registered medical practitioner in a setting which could mislead someone into believing they were a registered medical practitioner, if that person is not qualified to be a medical practitioner.

People in New Zealand who qualified in various therapies in other countries, and who were called doctor or equivalent there, usually keep using “doctor” here - notably practitioners of Chinese medicine, Indian homœopaths, and people who were conventional medical practitioners in Europe but are not registered to practise as such here.

My take on this is that it is okay to use the title of doctor on signs, business cards, literature, etc, if you follow your name with an abbreviation of your qualification which shows adequately that you are not an MB, ChB, MD, dentist, vet, or chiropractor.

I think it likely that if you are an MD from America, say, and not registered here, and set up here prescribing only homœopathic medicines, you would be in breach of the Act if you used Dr as a title, though it might take a Court case to establish a definitive interpretation. Obviously you can be Dr in the White Pages phone book with impunity, but in the Yellow Pages under “Homœopaths” it may be prudent to give your LCEH or BHMS to avoid a charge of deception.

Bruce Barwell

Right from the observations of Hahnemann there has been the hope of discovering a reliable malaria prophylactic. In recent times in India attempts to find such a thing have failed; or so I have been told, there does not seem to have been reports published.

Years ago the New Zealand Homœopathic Society prepared a statement-of-position on homœopathic prophylaxis; the Society’s view was that until such things have been proved beyond quibble to be effective, and harmless, their use could not be endorsed in any way. This is still the Society’s attitude.
I know from reports reaching me that there are many homœopaths and naturopaths dispensing so-called prophylactics - some offenders even being found behind the counter of a homœopathic pharmacy.

It is my personal view that this behaviour is so reprehensible that any professional homœopath guilty of encouraging the use of questionable methods of preventing serious illnesses should be struck from the register of any body to which they belong, because they are likely to bring homœopathy into serious disrepute.

Taking the position that the onus rests with the client, because they have been given the opportunity to assess the risks and deficiencies of conventional prophylactics compared to the alleged effectiveness of potentised preparations, is morally, and probably legally, very wrong.

Homœopaths must be very careful of the claims they make; I am not happy with the wording on many of the brochures advertising a homœopathic practice that I see.

Also, in this issue you may read, starting on page 3, a criticism of the usefulness of the grading of remedies in a repertory. Too much of the methodology of finding a remedy these days is a bean-counting exercise based on these dubious gradings. It is best, in my opinion, to repertorise with no regard for grading at all.

Lastly, as something to scotch the folk who say of homœopathy, “It’s all placebo” - on page 21 there is a report on the effect of different hypermolecular preparations on the growth of caterpillars. It is hard, I would say impossible, to explain away figures like those in the table accompanying this article.

Bruce Barwell