Dear Mr Grillo, Leader of Five Start Movement in Italy,
I am writing to you concerning “Homeopathy”.
On 13th of August 2018, you indicated to the Italian pharmacists the suspension of the sale of homeopathic products that they have, according to you, no effectiveness. http://www.beppegrillo.it/fate-ordine/
Specifically, you wrote: “I appeal to your Order and to all the professionals you represent: we must avoid pharmacies continuing to confuse citizens with the sale of homeopathic products. The strong doubts about their effectiveness on the part of the scientific world are public knowledge. Thus, even though I wouldn’t permit myself to give a definitive judgment, homeopathy has been repeatedly questioned, and has been given implacable verdicts of ineffectiveness and inopportunity. This concerns both its validity as a therapeutic option and the possibility of a delay in the appropriate medical approach; a delay that could be caused precisely by abuse of these ineffective products so that, despite being on sale in many pharmacies, drugs (does he mean Pharma drugs here that can’t be defined clearly for a Pharma prescription, or confusion because pharmacists cannot define the homeopathic remedies? If the latter, change ‘drugs’ to ‘homeopathic remedies’) cannot be defined”.
FACTS ABOUT HOMEOPATHY
We would like to clarify your serious misconceptions about classical homeopathy with the following information. Nota bene: I will only answer to you with facts and I will be more than happy to hear from you concerning facts.
1. It is well known that there are senseless and strange ideas in alternative and complementary medicine but these must not be confused with the serious and effective medicine, Homeopathy, as was promulgated by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann.
2. Classical Homeopathy is a therapeutic modality, a medicine in fact, which is based on the principle that the possibility of cure for a particular disease can often be achieved through the expert application of specially-prepared pharmaceutical substances which, when administered to a healthy person, have been proven to produce the similar symptoms as those of the disease in question. These proven substances are then effectively prescribed to sick persons.
3. Classical Homeopathy does not claim to cure everything but, significantly, it is very successful in the beginning stages of chronic conditions where conventional medicine can do very little. Homeopathy intervenes where conventional medicine can hardly do anything, especially at the beginning of chronic disease, where the disturbance has mainly been, and is still, of a functional character. When there is intervention with the correct homeopathic remedy, this can often stop further development of the disease.
4. Therefore, we have to separate homeopathy from other so called therapeutic methods. This was exactly the content of the speech of Prof. George Vithoulkas at the Council of Europe (see details below):
COUNCIL OF EUROPE / Parliamentary Assembly
Doc. 8435 / 11 June 1999
A European approach to non-conventional medicines
Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
Rapporteur: Ms Lara Ragnarsdóttir, Iceland, European Democratic Group
7. In May 1998, the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee heard Mr Vithoulkas, a homeopath who has been awarded the Alternative Nobel Prize, and who identifies three separate categories: firstly, alternative medicine, which includes homeopathy and acupuncture; secondly, complementary medicine, which includes osteopathy, chiropractic, herbal medicine, naturopathy and so on; and a third, paramedical, category comprising techniques such as music therapy and meditation which bear no relation to medicine proper.
5. Concerning the meta-analysis of over 1800 studies, published in 2015 by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
The examination of most of the homeopathic trials showed that studies rarely account for homeopathic principles, in order to assess the effectiveness of the treatment. The main flaw was that trials reflect the point of view that the treatment with a specific remedy could be administered in a particular disease. However, homeopathy aims to treat the whole person, rather than the diseases and each case has to be treated individually with an individualized remedy. Furthermore, the commonly known events during the course of homeopathic treatment, such as “initial aggravation” and “symptom-shift” were not considered in almost all the studies. Thus, only few trials were eligible for meta-analyses, if at all. (Vithoulkas G., Serious mistakes in meta-analysis of homeopathic research, Journal of Medicine and Life Vol. 10, Issue 1, January-March 2017, pp.47-49) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5304371/
The main research paper on which the attack on homeopathy was based on the meta-analysis by 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; 350:834-43.
It is important that you take time to read below the latest papers displaying impressive cured cases with Homeopathy:
Also note that a significant number of credible and positive experimental studies on homeopathy at molecular, cellular and clinical levels which have been published in peer review journals are presented below for the serious researcher. The research papers are categorised into three groups which you may view separately using the hyperlinks (in brackets): Human Studies, Animal Studies and In Vitro Studies.
These papers have been rigorously researched and produced by medical scientists, and have been approved and published in internationally-recognised, highly-respected Journals or other approved scientific sources of research material:
I think it will also be expedient for you to see the recent Swiss Report about homeopathy:
Including these very useful links from the World Health Organisation (WHO) about Homeopathy:
In the following link you will find a selection of positive references, decisions and directives from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and Others from 1975 to 2017:
I will now respectfully draw your attention to the fact that Prof. George Vithoulkas was awarded with the Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) in 1996, “for his outstanding contribution to the revival of homoeopathic knowledge and the training of homeopaths to the highest standards.”
It is our mutual moral duty to support and defend the human rights of the people, and the instinctive desires of patients, to choose the therapeutic modality they feel is better for themselves. This is an important issue of democracy: respect for the patient, and improvement of quality of life for humanity.
I am at your disposal to send you additional details if you need further clarification.