Dr Wong’s comments about homeopathy [Homeopathic medicine (arsenic and aconite) and Health Canada, BCMJ 2012;54:66] in which he quotes himself as a source, contain a number of inaccuracies and misconceptions. The quoted Cardiology 1999 article by Guha and colleagues reports the toxic effects of aconite tincture (italics added), which is not a homeopathic ultradilution. In fact, there are several studies that confirm the safety of homeopathic medicines.[1-4]
An excellent case series report from Israel using homeopathic Aconitum and Arsenicum album 200 CH potency revealed excellent benefit for acute anxiety during emergency room treatment of patients injured in the collapse of a wedding chapel in which 500 people were killed. Eighty-nine percent of patients treated homeopathically reported reduced anxiety within 24 hours.
Several animal and human studies have shown the benefit of homeopathic Arsenicum in potentized (diluted and succussed) form in stimulating the excretion of arsenic in poisoned individuals.[6,7] One such study compared the results in two villages in India, one of which had an arsenic contaminated water supply. The published results (and pictures) were quite dramatic.
The effect of homeopathy on a large scale can be seen in the Cuban study of leptospirosis (2007), in which a highly diluted solution of bacteria was given to 2.3 million inhabitants. In response to a growing epidemic, with only 15000 doses of the regular vaccine available, the government decided to use a homeopathic oral medicine prepared from the inactivated causative organism by the Cuban National Vaccine Institute.
Within weeks of administration, the number of cases fell from the forecast 38 to 4 per 100000 per week, while in the neighboring provinces the incidence was as forecast. Furthermore, there was an 84% reduction (without further medicine) in the treated region in the following year, while the incidence in the untreated region actually increased by 22%. This remarkable study should make Canadian Public Health officials sit up and pay notice.
There have been several meta-analyses supporting the effectiveness of homeopathy, and Dr Wong can find these with minimal effort on the Internet or through the College library.[9-12]
—Stephen Malthouse, MD
1. Dantas F, Rampes H. Do homeopathic medicines provoke adverse effects? A systematic review. Br Homeopath J 2000;89:535-538.
2. Kirby BJ. Safety of homeopathic products. J Royal Soc Med 2002;95:221-222.
3. Thompson E, Barron S, Spence D. A preliminary audit investigating remedy reactions including adverse events in routine homeopathic practice. Homeopathy 2004;93:203-209.
4. European Council for Classical Homeopathy. The Safety of Homeopathy. 2009. Accessed 10 April 2012. www.homeopathy-ecch.org/images/stories/The%20Safety%20of%20Homeopathy%20....
5. Oberbaum M, Schreiber R, Rosenthal C, et al. Homeopathic treatment in emergency medicine: A case series. Homeopathy 2003;92:44-47.
6. Cazin JC, Cazin M, Gaborit JL, et al. A study of the effect of decimal and centesimal dilutions of arsenic on the retention and mobilization of arsenic in the rat. Hum Toxicol 1987;6:315-320.
7. Belon P, Banerjee A, Karmakar SR, et al. Homeopathic remedy for arsenic toxicity? Evidence-based finding from a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind human trial. Sci Total Environ 2007 Oct;384(1-3)141-150. Epub 2007.
8. Bracho G, Varela E, Fernández R, et al. Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control. Homeopathy 2010;99:156-166.
9. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ 1991;302:316-323.
10. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350:834-843.
11. Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, et al. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy: A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;56:27-33.
12. Bornhoft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, et al. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice—summarized health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementmed 2006;13(suppl 2):19-29.
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org