Homoeopathy

About this Item
Speakers - Corbett The Hon Alan
Business - Adjournment

HOMOEOPATHY

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [10.50 p.m.]: Yesterday I was speaking about the difference between homoeopathic medicines and orthodox drugs and herbs, and used as an example the treatment of headaches. The drug or herb temporarily suppresses the symptoms by working against the body’s own efforts, whereas the homoeopathic medicine changes the out-of-balance state of the body so that not only is the headache cured rather than suppressed but if the right medicine and potency are chosen, susceptibility to chronic headache is removed, and the sufferer will not get another headache. That demonstrates how homoeopathic medicines work curatively rather than suppressively.

Homoeopathy uses as medicines diluted substances that are manufactured by a precise process of successive dilution and concussion. Because homoeopathy works by triggering or nudging the body’s own powerful healing mechanisms, instead of working against them, only very small doses of the medicinal substance are needed to produce dramatic results. In this respect it differs markedly from other systems of medicine, which employ moderate to large doses of herbs or drugs and operate by acting directly on the body’s physiology, for example, anti-depressants and paracetamol, or the organisms that are associated with or produce disease, for example, antibiotics. This approach basically amounts to a herb or drug temporarily taking over and doing the body’s job, which is often unnecessary or counterproductive.

Homoeopathy is a scientific system of medicine. Its central principle - like can be cured by like - was discovered when its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, a brilliant physician, chemist and multilingual translator of medical texts, was experimenting with a pharmaceutical preparation - cinchona or Peruvian bark, which had anti-malarial properties - on himself. He found that it produced symptoms very similar to some forms of malaria. Inspired by his discovery, he went on to investigate more pharmaceutical preparations and herbs, and discovered a number of them which again operated on the principle of like cures like. In the past 200 years he and his followers have tested
Page 6845
many medicines on healthy people to determine their mode of action and sphere of influence. These tests are called provings, from the German "prufung", which means test or trial.

Both the principle of like cures like and the concept of very small doses of medicine are recognised and utilised in orthodox medicine, but their potential remains largely untapped. Some examples in orthodox medicine of like being used to treat like, albeit clumsily and accidentally, are the use of amphetamines or caffeine for treating hyperactivity in children, radiation therapy for cancer and tumours, and allergen desensitisation techniques and digitalis for heart conditions. The action and efficacy of very small doses of medicine have had a chequered career in pharmacological history. They were described in one of the first laws of pharmacology, the Arndt-Schulz law, and have recently come to light again in the field of toxicology, where they are known as Hormesis - the study of the stimulating effect of small amounts of toxic substances on organisms.

A number of studies have been undertaken into the efficacy of homoeopathic treatment over the years, which have served mainly to highlight the difficulties of researching an unconventional therapy by conventional methods. One of the problems that has been highlighted is that homoeopathic treatment cannot be standardised. The strongly individualised nature of effective homoeopathic treatment precludes the accurate assessment of the effectiveness of any one homoeopathic medicine for any one ailment. For example, there is no one homoeopathic medicine for headache or flu. Double blind studies are unsuited to the evaluation of homoeopathy, as they cannot accommodate the conditions necessary for effective homoeopathic treatment.

There is a conflict between the requirement for double blind conditions and the necessity for ongoing evaluation of patient response to the medicine as a guide to choice of medicine and potency. Sample sizes have been far too small for accurate evaluation of results. The average homoeopathic trial is performed on 10 to 30 subjects, whereas sample sizes in the thousands are the norm in pharmaceutical research. Despite the observations and experience of countless practitioners and satisfied patients over the past 200 years, homoeopathy has been passed over for research funding which, if provided, would answer the very criticism levelled at it: that there is no conclusive evidence of its efficacy, and its mechanism of action is implausible.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is true, there is no evidence.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: Yes, it is true because there is not enough research. Also, homoeopathic medicines are extremely cheap to produce, and do not represent an attractive research investment for pharmaceutical companies. Once again I have run out of time; but on the next occasion I might complete my speech.

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:29:30 : Update this page