PART ONE
Why homeopathy and what is it anyway?
I work at Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. I’m a medical doctor, used to be a GP (Family Physician), but I became gradually disenchanted with prescribing only antis (anti-biotics, anti-depressants, anti-inflammatories, anti-histamines, anti-hypertensives……..you get the picture) and only having the time to focus on little bits of people instead of the people themselves (we call those little bits diseases by the way). I had perhaps strangely had a notion that being a doctor would be about being involved in healing (ever tried looking up “health” or “healing” in a medical textbook? Don’t bother. No such index items!) so just suppressing bits of people didn’t feel like what a proper doctor should be doing. On top of that there were situations every day where I just didn’t have anything good to offer (everything from infant colic, to night cramps, restless legs, sports injuries, PMT…….blah, blah, blah – believe me, there are LOTS of problems your doctor doesn’t have answers for!)
I happened upon a course in “Homeopathy” at Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital back in 1983 – didn’t know there was such a hospital and had no idea what “homeopathy” was anyway, but something about the ad caught my attention – wish I could remember what it was! – I think it was something that mentioned “healing”! Well, I signed up. I learned there about homeopathic medicines, how safe they were, and what their indications were and they gave us a wee box of 10 remedies to go and try out in our practices. Well, from the first try I was amazed at how good these treatments were. They could deliver improvements in conditions I hadn’t other answers for and that was VERY useful. Patients would stop me in the street and thank me for the prescription because it had helped so much – that NEVER happened when I prescribed an anti-something!
To cut a long story short, the patient demand for homeopathic treatment drove my learning and after I passed the Membership exam of the Faculty of Homeopathy I started working at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital in the Outpatient Dept every wednesday. Well, my wednesdays soon got an awful lot more satisfying than the mondays, tuesdays, thursdays and fridays, so I had a crisis. All my life I’d wanted to be a doctor, no, not just a doctor, but a GP, and here I was thinking I don’t want to be a GP anymore. So I stopped being a GP and for a few months did a weekly radio show on ScotFM, wrote a textbook of homeopathy for GPs, and did my wednesday clinics. After a few months my friend and colleague, David Reilly at the Homeopathic Hospital suggested we make a bid for the creation of full-time position for me at the hospital. I started there full-time in 1995 and I’m still there. I love it! Every single day, every single clinic, every single patient. I look forward to every day of work. How many people can say that?
So what do I do there? What’s this homeopathy?
Everyone I see there has been referred by another doctor or nurse. Everyone I see has a chronic problem – everything from chronic pain, to allergies, skin problems, cancer, multiple sclerosis, psychiatric problems like depression, bipolar disorders, you name it. I see a lot of kids. Almost half my practice is treating children. The thing most of these people have in common is that they’ve already tried the drugs, surgery and so on recommended by other doctors but they’re still not well, still suffering. Amazingly, our in-house audits consistently show that across the board, after receiving homeopathic treatment, around two-thirds of these patients claim a benefit which makes a difference to their daily lives.
So, no wonder it’s such a treat to work there. Most of the patients get benefits from the treatments which they didn’t find elsewhere. That’s hugely satisfying if your goal in life as a doctor is to try and relieve suffering.
Ok, enough, you’re probably thinking, what on earth is this homeopathy thing anyway?
Dr Samuel Hanhemann, was a German doctor who lived from 1755 – 1843 As a young doctor he soon grew disenchanted with the practice of medicine of his day – he thought that blood-letting, cupping, leeching, purging and poisoning patients was pretty brutal and didn’t seem to actually heal anyone. So he stopped being a doctor and to earn some money he translated textbooks into German. One day he was translating Cullen’s Pharmacopoeia from English into German and he read about the treatment of swamp fever with Peruvian Tree Bark. Cullen said this drug worked by being an “astringent” ie it dried the body up. Hahnemann, wondered if that was right, so to test it out, he took some. Much to his surprise, he found that he got all the symptoms of swamp fever. How interesting! The drug which can cure the disease can produce the same disease when given to a healthy patient (that’s not exactly true but it’s how he saw it). He then tested a bunch of other common drugs of the time and found the same phenomenon. He called this “the treatment of like cures like” – “homeopathy”.
Does this make sense? Well, yes it does. There’s a phenomenon we know called “hormesis” – where a drug which has one effect at a high dose, has an opposite effect at a low dose. Think of aspirin. In high doses it makes the body temperature rise, yet in low doses it can lower a fever. Professor Bond, pharmacologist in Houston coined the term “paradoxical pharmacology” to describe this phenomenon and even created a receptor theory model to explain it. Nothing really controversial here. Let’s move on.
Hahnemann thought that doctors shouldn’t be poisoning their patients so he decided to find out what was the smallest possible dose of a medicine which would bring about a healing effect (when prescribed on the basis of this like treats like idea). There weren’t any drug companies in those days so doctors had to prepare their own medicines. Hahnemann used a method of serial dilutions and succussions to make his medicines (that’s a stepwise series of dilution of the original substance with vigorous shaking of the test tube between each dilution). He got another surprise. Not only did the smaller doses cause less harm, they actually seemed to cure quicker! The more dilute preparations had a more powerful effect! OK, I hear you say, enough’s enough. This is crazy thinking! Well, it gets worse. Cos he pushed this dilution theory way up to 1 in 10 to the power 30 and beyond – trust me, I’m a doctor – that means there are NONE of the original molecules left! Now THAT is controversial! In fact, its at this point where some people start to say homeopathy is sheer nonsense and can’t possibly work!
Would it surprise you to know I disagree with that view?
You might want to go check out the scientific research in homeopathy. I recommend you start here. In short, there are many clinical trials of homeopathy and many have shown effects of homeopathic treatments that cannot be dismissed as placebo. Something seems to be happening and its probably not placebo. In fact the clinical trial evidence in homeopathy is not very strong and doesn’t really answer any of the questions about this treatment so we need to look elsewhere. Elsewhere includes what are known as outcome studies. These are studies of what actually happens to patients who have homeopathic treatment (not comparing this to placebo medicines). Consistently such studies show around two out of every three patients get benefits from homeopathic treatments. So, however you explain it, for most people it does exactly what it says on the tin – it helps. What about the idea that such ultra-high dilutions can have a consistent biological effect? Is that nonsense? Well, interestingly, there have been a number of laboratory studies in recent years which show that water does indeed have the capacity to communicate specific effects of substances which have been diluted in it many times. This is early work but it shouldn’t be dismissed.
But what IS homeopathy?
Homeopathic medicines are prepared from natural substances – plants, minerals, substances of animal origin – all of which are serially diluted and succussed many, many times to prepare the actual medicines. Every single medicine has its own unique picture of symptoms as described in homeopathic materia medicae – these are reference books based on clinical trials (called “provings”), clinical experience and toxicological information about the substances. The idea is that the picture of the remedy should match, as closely as possible, the picture of the patient’s illness (actually I prefer the concept of the “narrative” as opposed to the “picture”).
The narrative of the patient’s illness reveals their unique experience (no two people with the same diagnosis have the same narrative) and it reveals their patterns of coping (and failing to cope) – this is what we are looking for in selecting a specific homeopathic medicine – the narrative of the experience and the patterns of coping. When the patient takes the homeopathic medicine the intention is to stimulate their processes of self-repair, self-recovery and self-healing. The intention is NOT to suppress but to heal. The medicines themselves are non-toxic – they have no significant side-effects, a record over 200 years of absolutely NO fatalities, and can be safely taken in conjunction with other prescribed medication.
PART TWO
What motivates the critics?
There’s a campaign going on against homeopathy. It amazes me to discover the lengths that critics go to in their attacks and as a health care professional I find it especially disappointing to read, not just a lack of respect for the views of others, but the sheer contempt and even vitriol which is used in some of the language they use.
What I don’t understand is what motivates them to get so upset and active?
Safety?
Nobody has ever died from the direct effects of a homeopathic remedy; the medicines are not dangerous (unlike prescribed pharmaceuticals, which are recorded being responsible for around 1,000 deaths a year in England alone – with estimates that this represents only 10% of the true figure).
The so-called risks of homeopathic practice are nothing to do with homeopathy. They are due to the practice of medicine by people who are unregulated by the state. In the UK, it’s illegal to practice medicine on cats and dogs unless the practitioner is a regulated vet. However, there’s no equivalent laws for humans. If the critics are concerned about patients being denied effective drug or surgical treatments, then they should be concerned about regulation, not homeopathy. Homeopathic practice by trained doctors, dentists, nurses, vets and other statutorily regulated practitioners who have achieved the Faculty of Homeopathy’s qualifications does not carry an increased risk of misdiagnosis, or denial of relevant treatment, over and above those risks inherent in every single practitioner (nobody is infallible)
Money?
It’s not that it’s expensive. The NHS spends around £6 million a year on homeopathy provided through the five NHS homeopathic hositals. To put that in perspective, the estimated hospital inpatient costs of dealing with patients who are experiencing severe adverse effects of drugs prescribed in England is £466 million a year. And in 2005, an estimated £320 million was paid by the NHS in England to management consultants. If the critics were genuinely concerned about the financial implications of patients being denied “proven” treatments, they really aren’t going to make much of a difference by ridding the NHS of homeopathy (£6 million out of a £7.2 billion drug bill? Isn’t that about 0.008%? Does that rate as a significant effect?). Nope, they’d be better off putting their energies elsewhere. It can’t be the economic argument that gets them up out of bed in the mornings!
So what is it?
Beliefs?
Well, it seems that what bothers them is that they can’t explain how it works. In fact, the issue of ultra-high dilutions having biological effects is, to them, plainly ridiculous. As Michael Baum clarified in today’s Lancet, “the reason we started this campaign was out of a sense of despair over a malaise in society, a flight from rationalism.” Is that enough to make someone agitated? Goodness, philosophers have argued over the centuries about the ways we perceive the world and make sense of our lives. Rationalism’s got a lot going for it (I’m pretty keen on it myself), but it’s not the be all and end all of existence for everybody (and the alternative to rationalism, by the way, includes non-rationalism, not simply irrationalism!)
Proven cures?
And here’s another thing I don’t understand. We all know that most “proven” medicines don’t work for most people. It was no other than Dr Allen Roses, Vice President of Glaxo SKF who stated that
“the vast majority of drugs – more than 90% – only work in 30 – 50% of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don’t work in everybody”
He’s absolutely right. It’s a common experience for a patient to take one tablet for, say blood pressure, only to find it doesn’t work for them, then take a second one, only to find that doesn’t work either, and so to end up on yet another. You can say that about any condition and any drug. That’s why there are so many different painkillers on the market, so many different laxatives, so many different antidepressants and so on – there isn’t a single drug on the market that works for everyone. The dilemma of health care planners should be, “what do we offer those patients who have tried everything and are still stuck with their original problem?” Most people who attend the NHS homeopathic hospitals are in this very category. Two thirds of the patients who receive homeopathic treatments at these very hospitals claim it benefits them. But the critics say that they know better than these patients. They say, oh no, you can’t really have benefited because we know homeopathy can’t work. You must be deluded! You must only think you have benefited. Well, I’m sorry but in my consulting room, the most important person is the patient. Only they can tell me of their suffering and only they can tell me, as most did this week, that since they received homeopathic treatment, their suffering is less. Two thirds? Yes. All the NHS Homeopathic hospitals have similar experiences – most of these patients get benefits from their treatment, having failed to get benefits from their previous treatments.
And isn’t that what health care is about?
Reducing suffering? Increasing health?
So, what’s all the fuss?
Why attack a therapy which apparently helps two thirds of the patients who receive it, which has never killed a single person, and which costs so little?
Jeanette Winterson, writes in the Guardian today about this –
This homeophobia is, I think, a genuine terror of what homeopathy is suggesting; which is that we think differently about the relationship between the cure and the disease. It is not enough to say Disease A is caused by B and can be cured by C. Homeopathy, in common with other holistic approaches, asks that we look at the whole picture – the person, and not just his illness. Specifically, in the case of homeopathy, the remedy picture, which is carefully drawn up after full consultation with the patient, follows the “like by like” premise – that tiny dilutions of the “problem” can prompt the body to effect its own cure. This is why the homeopathic code of practice does not talk about the medicines themselves having a simple causal effect – C cures A. Homeopathy seeks to understand everything we are, everything we do, as a web of relatedness. The reason why I have a recurring sore throat will not be the reason why you have one, and what helps me may not help you.
Is she right? Is that the problem? Because it changes the focus from the disease to the patient? I’m not so convinced by her argument. Good general practice has been taught and practised on this premise for years. That homeopathy is non-linear? Well, I’m not so sure. I think that human beings can be understood as complex adaptive systems, and one of the characteristics of such systems is non-linearity. But this isn’t a particularly homeopathic concept. It’s a scientific one.
Evidence Based Practice
Let’s look at the issue of evidence, because this is a common line of attack – that there is “no evidence” that homeopathy works. Well you know, I think the my evidence is bigger than your evidence debate is rather stale, but suffice it to say that, yes, I have read all the meta-analyses and I’ve read clear conclusions such as the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo” (this was published in the Lancet in 1997 – the one meta-analysis that Ben Goldacre doesn’t reference in his column in the Lancet today) In addition there are several other systematic reviews published in peer reviewed journals which focus on particular medical conditions and which have been positive for homeopathy. A good summary of the evidence base is on the Faculty of Homeopathy’s website.
But the point about Evidence Based practice, as pointed out by David Tovey, the Editorial Director of BMJ Knowledge, is
that evidence should be only one influence on clinical decision making, alongside the expertise and perspectives of both patients and clinicians. However uncomfortable for health system planners an evidence based service should reflect expressed patient preference.
This is exactly what Professor Sackett said when he laid out the basic principles of EBM. One of the main reasons for taking into consideration the patients’ views is that only the patients can tell us whether or not a particular intervention has helped them (irrespective of the experimental research findings which have been published)
As I said at the outset, what’s the problem?
Does it really come down to a few people upset that a treatment which their beliefs tell them can’t work, apparently does (according to the real people who have actually experienced it)?
Choice
Patients have a right to choice in health care, because people are different. Even people with the same diagnosis will have very different experiences of that disease and quite different prognoses. They will frequently benefit from totally different interventions. Ousting a safe, inexpensive form of health care from the NHS will not improve the lot of patients. Promoting one-size-fits-all treatments doesn’t strike me as rational. Diversity is a healthy ecological principle. It’s time we valued human beings more highly than systems and technologies in health care. Homeopathically trained doctors are typically passionate about trying to understand patients and to relieve their suffering. They are amongst the most caring, empathic and committed doctors I’ve ever met. I don’t think the NHS would be better off without them.
Heroes Not Zombies 
[…] Homeopathy […]
Thank you for quite an interesting article. I had heard about homeopathy and the British Royal family’s interest and useage of it and, wishing to know more, I posted a few weeks in usenet newsgroup alt.talk.royalty hoping someone might suggest a good book.
Instead, I was immediately attacked as though I had suggest bubonic plague was a good thing or something.
I was astonished at the hysterical hatred of the anti-homeopathists and resolved from that moment on to start doing some research and learn what it was all about.
Everyone kept pointing to the Lancet article of 2005 as the definitive “refutation”. After reading comments on both the manner of trying to do legitimate research testing with “debunkers” present and the quality
of the Lancet’s refutations, I think the “refutation”
shows itself to be more of an attempt at assasinating an entire field rather than any kind of legitimate research, however pretensious. Others shouted that no homeopathy remedy had EVER passed a double blind test. Others insisted that 200 years of reports of remarkable cures were merely placebo effects (how could that be, I wondered, when some of the reports included dramatic cures of babies too??).
When I find an M.D. such as yourself who apparently has retained his open mindedness and, coupled with a healthy skepticism, willingness to entertain new ideas that do not always jive with accepted theory, this is of enormous benefit to people such as myself who wish only to get some idea of what it is all about.
I reminded the rather hysterical anti-homeopathists in the newsgroup that not so long ago, the proposal that certain kinds of stomach ulcers might be caused by a bacteria was met with scorn and even derision in the medical community yet subsequent, and quite persistent research proved this idea correct and today we now know of heliobacter pylori and no longer have to routinely cut out portions of the sufferers stomach.
So, I am neither a pro nor an anti-homeopathist but what I have learned from excellent and well reasoned articles such as yours has confirmed to me the importance of keeping an OPEN mind while carefully weighing and analyzing the numerous reports of successful cures and remediations.
Many Thanks
James Pannozzi
Well thank you James.
I really appreciate your comments here.
Isn’t it interesting how even a dispassionate enquirer can receive abuse for just considering something?
From the International Homeopathy Debate ll, from Univ. of Connecticut, the following pro Homeopathic research comments, by Dr. Ira Bell MD, PhD, were quite good (youtube)
BRAVO! Thank you for a voice of reason in a time when an insolent few would like to rob the public of a health care system that works so profoundly.
Thanks for the link James – I’m trying to get hold of the powerpoints – I’ll let you know!
goodscience – thank you for your support and encouragement. I appreciate it
Hi Bob,
Interesting article. And I can say as a critic of homeopathy, there is much I can agree with here.
But…
You ask what motivates the critics? Can I answer that as a critic? The first thing that amazes me is how seldom this question is asked. It is assumed that I am ‘afraid’ as Winterson would have it, or corrupted by money as most homeopaths would think.
These explanations do not come close. Let’s get the first thing out of the way – the implausibility of homeopathy. I find it amazing that this problem is brushed aside so lightly. The various meta-studies, including the re-written Lancet study, are still consistent with the ‘homeopathy as inert sugar pill’ explanation, especially in the light of the sheer unlikeliness of the alternatives. There is still not enough evidence to move away from this explanation of homeopathy – and to move away too soon leads to significant problems:
Firstly: the distortion of science. There is too much misrepresenting of what we do know about the world within the homeopathic community. Everything from loose talk of ‘energies’ and ‘vibrations’ to distortions of material science and quantum physics. In itself, there is enough here to upset someone who cares about the truth and reason and the effect that abandoning these things has on society.
And secondly: what follows on from this is the total rejection of science within the non-medically qualified practitioners of homeopathy (as Peter Fisher describes them) that leads to positively dangerous behaviours. If the NMQP’s practice within the bounds of what we can reasonably know about the effects of a placebo based medicine (because that is what the majority of the good evidence says it is, both theoretical and experimental) then there would be no problem. But, instead we get homeopathic malaria prophylaxis and AIDS seminars.
As for medical homeopaths, again there would be little problem (it does not soak up too much NHS money) but it amazes me how you let your non-professional colleagues get away with terrible and dangerous nonsenses. Silence, is the crime.
Unfortunately, it then appears that you are complicit and lend state-sanctioned credibility to their dangerous delusions. That is the main reason I think we would be better off without institutions like the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. By all means let GP’s dish out sugar pills if their judgement rules it might be better than doing nothing. But let us not pretend there is a parallel world of alternative homeopathic medicine that deserves an equal (or even superior) seat at the table with what homeaopths insultingly call ‘allopathic’ medicine.
Hi Andy – thankyou for this very reasonable comment – I’m pleased to hear what some of your issues are – essentially you’re saying you’re motivated to run your quackometer site to defend science and to defend patients from dangerous medical practices? Is that right?
If it is, then I must say that I totally concur with your second motive – I too would like to do my best to protect patients from dangerous medical practices, and I believe that all medical practice should be statutorily regulated.
Your first motive though…..well, I thoroughly enjoy science (see my post “good science” for what I mean by that) but I don’t think science as a method is undermined by research or hypotheses which aren’t replicated or which are subsequently proven wrong.
Can I ask you to say what points of agreement you think we have? I’m interested in that opening remark of yours – because I think to have a true conversation you have to find some common starting point.
Well, what would I agree with? maybe this:
“The so-called risks of homeopathic practice are nothing to do with homeopathy. They are due to the practice of medicine by people who are unregulated by the state. In the UK, it’s illegal to practice medicine on cats and dogs unless the practitioner is a regulated vet. However, there’s no equivalent laws for humans. If the critics are concerned about patients being denied effective drug or surgical treatments, then they should be concerned about regulation, not homeopathy.”
Although, I do not think regulation per se may be the default solution. I am however concerned about how NMQP Homeopaths regulate themselves. As you can see from my blog, there is scant evidence that they are interested in enforcing their own rules, let alone more universal standards of behaviour. That NMQP homeopaths pretty much without exception define themselves in opposition to the medical profession ought to be of great concern to medical homeopaths and the broader medical community. Maybe legislation is the answer, as it is in France. Medical homeopaths may well benefit enormously from that.
I would also agree that:
“evidence should be only one influence on clinical decision making, alongside the expertise and perspectives of both patients and clinicians. However uncomfortable for health system planners an evidence based service should reflect expressed patient preference.”
However, I see so many NMQP homeopaths seriously distorting science in general, the evidence base for homeopathy and the motives of the medical profession (even medical homeopaths) that they add nothing to widening patient preference. True choice is not based on delusion and misinformation. Risks cannot be weighed or health trade offs be made when ones basis of choice is restricted by fallacies and lies. That is what NMQP’s add to ‘patient choice’. And worse, they try to remove evidence from the balance all together.
I understand that medical homeopaths are on the horns of a dilemma. To admit your own doubts would restrict your ability to impart a strong placebo effect that is what undoubtedly underpins so much of the benefits of homeopathic therapy. Belief is so important.
The big question is how do you control such belief?
I’ve read your comments with interest…I believe its the patient’s choice…and, when a Homeopath is registered and, in fact a qualified doctor too – like Dr Leckrdige, – then the patient makes the choice to go with this treatment. It has worked for me. I have a sceptical – but, open, mind…I am NOT easily led. I do, though, have strong beliefs that it is MY choice to go with what treatment works for me. I go by results. My own personal results and experience with treatment.
Thank you Andy.
I don’t feel I am on the horns of a dilemma actually. I do admit my doubts – I think a good scientist always doubts and I think a good doctor should too. I do hope we can say goodbye to the days when doctors did the “Trust me I’m a doctor” bit and claimed superiority over their patients. It’s a fine line though, I’ll grant you that. How do get truly informed consent from a patient for any treatment without undermining it by laying out all the potential side effects, limitations or chances of failure? There’s something to the art of medicine in there I think. If I ever need surgery for example I want a surgeon who honestly explains the risks and limits of the proposed surgery but who I can trust because he, or she, has reasonable confidence in their skill. I’m the same I reckon. I can’t tell patients with certainty how things will turn out, but I have a reasonable confidence in my own skills. Oh, by the way, I do also tell all my patients at the first visit that homeopathy is controversial because of the ultra-high dilutions used and offer the time and space to discuss that. It’s pretty rare for people to want to spend much time on that actually.
Is what I do mainly placebo? I don’t know Andy. Interestingly, the placebo effect (which lets face it is poorly understood and very under-researched) is an integral feature of every single therapeutic intervention. There are no placebo-free treatments! So, actually, it’s not possible for any doctor to know how much of the treatment effect in this particular patient is placebo and how much is non-placebo. It gets worse, actually, when you consider how poor is the relationship between symptoms and disease (search my blog for “Kroenke”)
Your big question really is a big one – how do you control any beliefs? Are beliefs controllable at all? Would I want to control somebody else’s beliefs? Cripes!
Dear Bob-
What an elegant and lovely blog you have!
I am a former registered nurse who discovered homeopathy 27 years ago. I neither believed nor disbelieved, but had an open mind.
I can report that my personal experience with a well-chosen remedy has caused a palpable shift in my physical, emotional or even mental stats. Placebo? I believe not, as I have had remedies that did nothing…… Therapuetic effect from the interview? Something has happened when I had the opportunity to speak and be really heard- a release. But the deeper, longer lasting effects have happened over time subsequent to taking the remedy.
For example: I developed an infected tooth with agonizing pain- clearly abcessed. Went to my homeopath: talked about the pain, how it felt, what made it better or worse. To complicate things, I had just found out I was 6 weeks pregnant.
Was given a remedy, and within one minute the pain was completely gone. I then started crying, partly from the pain relief, but partly from accessing my emotions about the new pregnancy. So….was my infected tooth due to my emotional state? Or was it co-incidence? All I know, is that the abcess started to heal, I had insight into my feelings around this new pregnancy, came to a state of acceptance and went on to have a healthy pregnancy,birth and new baby.
And of course, we then have the experience of seeing an infant, child or animal respond to a homeopathic remedy.
Andy, have you ever held a dying animal or an inconsolable teething, fretful, feaverish infant in your arms, and witnessed them turn around within seconds of a remedy being placed on their tongue?
I have.
I embrace this dialogue in this spirit of respect and thoughtful inquiry
-GG
The act of care and the placebo can indeed be strong – as GaleG shows us with her dying baby/animal. But the strongest placebo must surely be given by someone who also believes in the therapy. That is the central dilemma of alternative medicine.
My question “The big question is how do you control such belief?” is not about controlling belief in the patient so much as controlling belief in the practitioner. If a NMQP homeopath believes that homeopathy is a ‘complete system of medicine’ (as the SoH describes it) and is philosophically opposed to their medical counterparts, then we risk seeing damage being done by the fact they have cut themselves off from reason and evidence – hence, we see then offering malaria immunisation and AIDS remedies.
Bob. Can I take it that you would condemn the practice of offering homeopathy as an alternative to malaria prophylaxis? Can you confirm that?
If so, what do you think can be done about NMQP Homeopaths who advocate such practices?
I agree Andy – we don’t really understand the placebo phenomenon but I think it’s pretty clear that it’s more powerful if the therapist believes in the therapy. Mind you, which doctor doesn’t believe strongly in his or her therapy? I’d hope they all do!
Ah, thanks for clarifying the point about beliefs.
Yes I totally condemn the practice of offering homeopathy as an alternative to malaria prophylaxis. It is unsafe practice to do so, and puts people unnecessarily at risk, leaving them exposed to infection when they might think they aren’t (and so not even taking the usual precautionary measures in malarial areas). While I’m at it I also condemn the use of homeopathic remedies as “alternative vaccinations” – and I’d defend this view from first principles of homeopathic practice too – bear with me a moment – in homeopathic theory, like cures like……if there’s no illness there, there’s nothing to cure.
What can be done about such advocates?
Well, three things might help – statutory regulation of anyone who seeks to offer medical advice/treatment would be first on my list; education would be second but I’m not sure how we influence the philosophies of the alternativists; and widespread, free (on the NHS) homeopathy practised by statutorily regulated health care professionals – doctors and nurses mainly. I think the public is driven into the hands of unregulated practitioners when they can’t get the help they seek from doctors. (OK, I know some people don’t like/trust doctors, but I expect most people will choose a doctor over someone in a shop who hasn’t been medically trained……actually having seen the mushrooming of Chinese Herbal shops in shopping centres throughout the UK maybe I’m a bit deluded there!)
GaleG, thankyou for your kind comments. It’s always interesting to hear of people’s experiences and I think you’re right that a powerful positive experience of a therapy does of course increase your confidence in it. I’ve had quite a few sceptical parents attend with their children (sometimes one parent is keen to try homeopathy and the other is not so keen but goes along with their partner’s choice) who after witnessing an improvement have explicitly said to me that they are personally convinced of the value of the treatment.
Thanks Bob. In the interest of trying to establish where the common ground might be. What do you think of NMQP Homeopaths who work in AIDS clinics in Africa? Do you see that as dangerous as I do? Whilst their public claims may be that they are acting as a complementary service to the medics, I fear that their (often private) staunch anti-‘allopath’ rhetoric may mean that they are incautious in their dialogue with patients.
Andy, I don’t know any detail about such activities. I’d hope that a medical team working in any country would have good clinical governance processes. That would require all staff to be trained for the job they were doing and for them all to be adequately supervised and accountable. Also, anyone providing health care in another country should work within the laws of that land. I wouldn’t support any other way of working
What is the difference between the evidence for homeopathic treatment of malaria and the evidence for the homoepathic treatments that you administer? As a sceptic, I can’t see any evidence for any type of homeopathy whatsoever but it seems that you can see clear evidence for the treatments you use while also being able to comprehensively dismiss the evidence that others claim for malarial treatment.
So what’s the difference?
I’m guessing you’ll be well read on the issue of evidence, M J, so I’m not going to rehearse it all here. But we both know, don’t we, that there are many types of evidence, including randomised controlled trials, qualitative research, observational studies, audits and in the case of each individual, a patient’s report of their own experience.
Part of a doctor’s job is to handle those different types of evidence in making clinical decisions. I reckon that’s something all doctors do every day.
Bob, I agree that there are different types of evidence but I am curious as to what significant difference you personally see between the evidence that is available for homeopathic treatment of malaria and the evidence that is available for the treatments you use.
In the former case I see no reliable research in its favour, only a bunch of anecdotes. Everything suggests that homeopathic pills for malaria are just sugar tablets with no effect whatsoever. In the latter I see… exactly the same thing. But clearly you don’t.
I mean, this is pretty unequivocal: “I totally condemn the practice of offering homeopathy as an alternative to malaria prophylaxis. It is unsafe practice to do so, and puts people unnecessarily at risk, leaving them exposed to infection when they might think they aren’t” That’s very sound advice and I wholeheartedly agree.
You’re not fence-sitting, you’re not saying “Well, there’s no evidence either way. Perhaps…”, you’re saying (like Peter Fisher) that it is plainly ridiculous to think that homeopathy could be effective against malaria. But why is this? Homeopathy is based on symptoms and ‘like cures like’ and haven’t there been provings of treatments which produced symptoms akin to those produced by malaria? (In fact, didn’t Hahnemann himself do such things?) How can you say with such certainty that those provings are flawed in some way but the ones for the treatments you use are sound?
Is it because malaria is a virus? Is homeopathy effective against viruses? Would you use it to treat flu?
Is it because malaria is deadly? Is homeopathy only effective against less life-threatening conditions?
Do you subscribe to the theory of miasms which, I understand, is the basis of homeopathy? If not, why not? If so, how does malaria’s effect on miasms differ from other diseases which are treatable?
Could you conceive of any method to distinguish an ineffective homeopathic treatment like the one for malaria from an effective one that you use, if neither bottle was labelled?
I’m not trying to give you the third degree here. Lots of questions but you could probably reply with just one answer.
I hope you can understand that to a sceptic who regards all homeopathy as nonsense, your ability to differentiate between effective and ineffective treatments sounds like an astrologer who says that any horoscopes we read for Capricorn and Pisces are genuine but the ones for Aquarius and Leo are obviously just made up.
Wow!
You know, M (can I ask you what the “M” stands for? Would you be up for addressing each other by our first names?), this really is a LOT you’re asking here.
Which bit would you like me to tackle first?
I think you’re asking about clinical decision making. Is that right? How does a doctor, or more specifically, how do I as a doctor who uses homeopathy make clinical decisions? Honestly, M, I think that’s a huge question. I don’t think I’m really any different from any other doctor when it comes to processes of decision making in day to day clinics. Every doctor has his or her range of knowledge and skill whether they’re surgeons, psychiatrists, physicians or whatever. I’m a general practitioner by training and practice and although I now work full-time in Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital I still refer patients to other specialities when I judge that seems most appropriate. I, I think like all doctors, make these decisions using a mix of what I know from formal evidence bases, what I was taught clinically in my hospital and GP jobs, my own clinical experience (been a doctor for 30 years next year), and a patient’s values, concerns and wishes.
Doctors just don’t make decisions on published research. I’m not dodging anything here, just trying to explain briefly something about clinical decision making. For example, if I suspected appendicitis, I’d immediately refer to a surgeon. I don’t need to consult research work to do that. There are countless examples like that. How I made decisions about the use of homeopathy in clinical practice as a GP was primarily to use it, firstly, in situations where I didn’t have effective, orthodox treatments available (and yes, flu might be one of those situations). Secondly, I’d use it in situations where the drugs I’d prescribed had failed to do what we hoped they’d do and I’d run out of alternatives, or where all the drugs I’d tried had caused unacceptable side-effects. Thirdly, I’d use it in situations where an effective drug was contra-indicated (treating pregnancy sickness would be an example). Fourthly, I’d use it alongside other treatments with a hope of minimising relapses in chronic conditions. Finally, I’d use it for patients with distressing symptoms, (like pain) where no medically explained cause could be found (if you look at Kroenke’s work you’ll see that’s the case in about 85% of the top 10 symptoms presented to doctors).
Does all this make sense to you?
You want me to deal with the miasm thing some other time? My brief answer is it was an interesting theory in its time but genetics, microbiology and the social understanding of illness have supplanted it. In other words I think it’s an interesting concept but I don’t think there are “entities” called miasms.
Thanks for the long answer Bob – and yes, let’s leave miasms for another time, but…
“I think you’re asking about clinical decision making. Is that right?”
No, not in the slightest. I’m not interested at all in how you make clinical decisions about what treatment (or type of treatment) to use on any particular patient and to be honest I can’t see how you could read that into my questions.
I’m asking about one specific thing, which is your (admirably) dismissive attitude towards homeopathic treatment for malaria, your ‘total condemnation’ of those who prescribe it. Because surely those homeopathic malarial remedies have been produced on exactly the same basis as, and using exactly the same techniques as, the ones you use for flu.
Someone has done a proving of substance X, diluting it beyond the point where any molecules remain and given it to healthy volunteers (without a control group) who subsequently developed flu-like symptoms. And on that basis you are willing to prescribe diluted-past-zero substance X to people suffering from flu.
Someone has done a proving of substance Y, diluting it beyond the point where any molecules remain and given it to healthy volunteers (without a control group) who subsequently developed malaria-like symptoms. But you “totally condemn” anyone who prescribes diluted-past-zero substance Y to people suffering from malaria.
On what basis do you make that differentiation? This is nothing to do with patients or clinical decisions. You have remedy X on your shelf and you are sure that it works. You condemn as dangerous anyone who has remedy Y on their shelf. What is different between the evidence that exists for remedy X curing flu and the evidence that exists for remedy Y curing malaria?
Sorry to keep on, but I’m genuinely fascinated and your previous answers were about something else that I’m not interested in.
Hello, M. You know I think something’s starting to get clear, and it’s the difference between the research world of experiments and the clinical world of patients. There is a big difference. One is about trying to understand an object or a phenomenon and the other is about trying to help a person, a particular person.
In the clinical world there aren’t clear cut “proven” and “unproven” treatments. A patient with hypertension might be prescribed drug X which the research trials tell us lowers blood pressure. You’d classify that as a “proven” treatment. However, frequently, the patient’s blood pressure remains stubbornly abnormal on drug X. So the fact it’s been given a “proven” tag matters not a whit to that patient. If the doctor were to plod on sticking with the same drug because it was “proven” they’d be doing the patient a BIG disservice. It’s the same with every single treatment which exists. No treatment works in all patients all the time.
So a judgement has to be made. In each and every case. What treatment is most likely to help this patient, and in the process least likely to do harm? It doesn’t come down to “provings”. The treatment choice is a clinical decision. How can I differentiate between two treatments without recourse to patients and clinical decisions? That’s just not the world I live in.
The different evidence is clinical, not experimental. Sometimes the best treatment for a condition is surgery, sometimes physiotherapy, sometimes counselling, sometimes a drug. Only the last of those treatments can be “proven” using placebo controlled trials. The others need to be understood through education, training, clinical reflection, shared expert knowledge, audit and so on.
I have a sense we’re kind of having a parallel conversation here cos we’re not quite on each other’s wavelengths, but this is my best shot at a reply!
Okay Bob, I’m going to try one last time and make it as simple as possible. Please try to answer this without reference to patients because I haven’t asked you any questions about patients. I’m asking you about you.
Question: How do you know that homeopathy cannot be used to treat malaria?
Oh dear, M….”without reference to patients”! Why would I want to not refer to patients?
Simple answer is from looking at randomised placebo controlled trials I don’t know that homeopathy cannot be used to treat malaria. Similarly I don’t know that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy cannot be used to treat malaria. Or blood-letting. Or high doses of vitamin C. Or……whatever, whatever.
How I know how to treat malaria comes from my medical training. You want to conduct a randomised controlled trial of homeopathy vs anti-malarials in the treatment of cerebral malaria?? I don’t think so!
I’ve been trained, like every doctor, to deal with a wide range of problems, and to know something about how a colleague with different skills would treat a problem which I don’t have the knowledge and skills to deal with. I’ve no detailed knowledge of how a renal physician works but I know it’s a good idea to refer a patient with renal failure to see such a specialist.
You know, M, I think we have different priorities, you and I. My priority is the treatment of the individual people who come to see me every day asking for help. What’s yours? Something about defending a view of science? I’m not sure. You haven’t said. Andy said pretty clearly what his motivation was, but I don’t know what yours is. Heck, I don’t even know what “M” stands for!!
So how do you square
“I totally condemn the practice of offering homeopathy as an alternative to malaria prophylaxis. It is unsafe practice to do so, and puts people unnecessarily at risk, leaving them exposed to infection when they might think they aren’t”
with
“I don’t know that homeopathy cannot be used to treat malaria.”
Oh, never mind. I’m giving up on this one Bob. If you refuse to answer a simple question, there’s no point in anyone engaging in any sort of debate with you.
Ok, M, let’s draw a line under it. Hope you have a good break over the holidays and I wish you well for 2008
Bob
[…] once before, but what I’ve done now is copy that text into a new permanent page entitled Homeopathy. You’ll find that first post under the heading Part One. Then I’ve added my thoughts […]
[…] in our thoughts on mind, philosophy and science, Dr. Leckridge is a practitioner on Homeopathy. On a particular post, the doctor gives a lot of very interesting arguments on both sides, although it is obviously more […]
Dear doctor Bob,
your blog is really intresting and useful. i’d love to add it to my blogroll, Thanks a lot!
radha
I just came across your blog while searching for a review of The Enigma of Health, and it’s a delight!
With regard to homeopathy, I saw a news story from the Washington Post this week about peanut allergies that included the comment: “But Burks and others are convinced that people with peanut allergies may soon find relief through immunotherapy, in which the allergic person is exposed to gradually-increased amounts of stuff that causes the allergic reaction, thereby building the person’s tolerance for those allergens.”
After all the effort organized medicine expended in the early 1900’s to discredit homeopathy, immunotherapy sounds like the wisdom of homeopathy with a new name.
I used to be an academic — history of science and medicine — and in my spare time now I’m planning to start my own blog where I talk about how medicine has changed since the mid-1950s. I’m especially interested in the increase in health consciousness in Western societies, why there is so much more information available about health, and how individuals now feel responsible for their health. There are many threads to this story, and it’s fascinating intellectual history.
Thanks for your blog. I’ll be returning.
If I may… it seems to me that the controversy in the dialogue between you and M Simpson comes down to an issue of what gets treated when, rather than with what and by whom. As you said, Bob, homeopathry is not administered in the absence of symptoms, so any administration of homeopathy as a PROPHYLACTIC is contraindicated by the philosophy that informs the practice. No symptoms, no treatment. But also, yes, once someone ACTUALLY HAS malaria, then you have symptoms galore and can choose remedies as part of a system of treatment suited to the manifestation of the illness in the particular patient.
It seems to me that one point of difference — perahps the main point of difference — between homeopathy and more standard medical treatments comes down to the attention that homeopathy accords to the patient versus the attention that standard medicine accords to the illness. To use a coarse example, if two people present with flu symptoms and one is the kind of person who wants to be left alone when ill adnnthe other likes to be cosseted and fussed over and read to and spoonfed sherbets made from out-of-season fruits, then a homeopath chooses a different remedy for each of those people because of the particular ways that the illness manifests in each one.
In standard medicine, however, the illness “a cold” is the deciding factor in the choice of treatments to relieve symptoms, so these two very different people will likely be told to take and do identical things: a decongestant, aspirin to reduce fever and body aches, push fluids, and rest.
Now here comes the anecdotal “evidence” — in my experience relieving symptoms with OTC meds will still allow the cold to persist for 8 to 12 days whereas with a well chosen homeopathic remedy, it will resolve in 8 to 12 hours (if that long).
No one in her right mind would suggest that homeopathy is always and only the right thing to do. If your patient’s appendix is about to burst, you aren’t going to sit him down and repertorize him for 2 hours. You’re going to send him to surgery ASAP — at least I hope that’s what you’re going to do. On the other hand, if you have someone with a persistent issue that is not responding to standard treatments, or a common problem that can be relieved with one of the polycrests, to deliberately withhold something that might ease his suffering — for whatever reason (e.g., contempt for his misbegotten belief in the practice or the practitioner, your own belief in the perfection and completeness of scientific inquiry and accomplishment) is simply depraved.
Some very effective science is founded on things that, for centuries, were not clearly understood or even able to be clearly perceived — Xrays, microwaves, magnetism, electricity, gravity, friction. Then one day they were. It is not woo-woo mysticism to imagine, based on more than 200 years of clinical practice, that there may really be something in this idea of dilution and succussion, that there may be some not yet measurable substance imprinted in the diluent that has a measurable effect. This system was, after all, devised by the man who — against all the common wisdom of the great scientific and medical minds of his generation — thought that washing his hands in between patients was a good idea. He couldn’t see those squirmy germy things, but his experience told him that cleanliness made a difference in patient care, so he washed his hands. What an idiot.
I’m glad I found this blog,
And it’s odd that Rembrandt lead me here but there we go. I consider myself open minded and intend to read more on the subject. As yet though, i haven’t read anything to suggest to me that it’s anything other than the amazing power of the mind. Maybe that’s the point, and i feel it’s been underplayed by my fellow critics, if the cure is the result of the placebo effect, then it doesn’t devalue the fact it’s a cure, it just shows just what belief is capable of.
New scientist contained an interesting article about ‘witch doctors’ referring to the fact that in the past people cursed by ‘witch doctors’ did report ill effects and sometimes death. The article compares this with the modern how many months to live. It’s the case study that really caught my attention, a man was given 6 months to live after his cancer had spread, he died after 6 months but the autopsy reviled the cancer had not spread. Had the man died because of belief?
Unfortunately i find it hard to believe externally triggered illness (bacterial, viral and others) can be cured by belief alone.
Right I’ll keep reading 🙂
Dear auxinforall, Having watched an interesting T.V. programme about 20 years ago viz a viz the efficacy of Homoeopathy I am encouraged to respond to your observations.This programme centred around a farmer in Hereford whose cows were suffering from a particular problem which resulted in their udders becoming severely inflamed.The herd was divided into two groups. One half was given a placebo,the other treated by Homoeopathic remedies.The results speak for themselves;the half which received the treatment recovered,whilst the other half’s symptoms persisted.unless one is prepared to posit the ability to psychologise as being in cattle I would therefore suggest that the remedies speak for themselves.
In response to the power of the mind – one of my patients had stage 4 cancer of the bowel and the liver. She was told she had 1 month to live. After 5 months of homoeopathic treatment, she was declared cured by the hospital doctors and internists that gave her a month.
Those cows are not the only exceptions. How about plants? I have developed homoeopathy for agriculture. Shall we believe I am such a great “witch-doctor” that I can fool plants with placebo? Those that believe we are witches prove thereby to live in 14th century superstition. Funny thing is that the superstitious are all so-called “rational scientists”!
As for treating malaria with homoeopathy as a prophylaxis, Bob, how about treating it during an epidemic, when the mosquitos that carry it bite everyone? Then we have the disease as one part – with its symptoms – and the remedy as another part – with its own symptoms that are produced in a proving when given in sufficient quantity. My understanding is that the remedy prevents the malaria and the malaria prevents the medicine – they cancel each other out.
We are confronted by our opponents as witches, believers and even religionists, when we speak about homoeopathy. They hold to the view that the materialist-reductionist approach is the only valid way to come to cognition. Thus that which they can hold between the fingers or can see with the eyes, becomes to them the only valid reality.
Models of reality developed in this way have great utility, but if we take them literally, they threaten to become “idols.” That is, we take the models offered by science for the realities themselves, just as the statue of Zeus can become mistaken for the god himself.Thus, what they accuse us of, is what they perpetrate themselves – they have become religionists of the church of material science.
Lord Kelvin, the nineteenth-century physicist, demanded a mechanical model before he would accept a theory of physics. We can therefore state that our opponents not only have 14th century ideas about the healing modality we know as homoeopathy, which they brand as witchcraft, but moreover are stuck in another time-warp of their own making, by hanging on to outdated nineteenth-century ideas of physics, which in every other endeavour in this field have long been superceded.
Alfred North Whitehead termed this “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” The sign and statue are meant to point beyond themselves. Likewise analysis is meant to point beyond itself. The models are not the point, but rather they represent to us a hidden intelligibility.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s criticism of nineteenth-century science is still helpful today in making this distinction. First we need to understand the rightful role of scientific models or “hypotheses” as they were called in Goethe’s time. Goethe wrote:
“Hypotheses are like the scaffolding erected in front of a building, to be dismantled when the building is completed. To the worker the scaffolding is indispensable, but he must not confuse it with the building itself. The scaffolding that surrounds a building allows us to “build” an understanding of it, but the scaffolding or model itself is not the endpoint. Having come to know in this limited way, we should take down the scaffolding (i.e., gradually dismantle or see through the model) in order to experience the building directly.”
The same counts for the model they have erected about homoeopathy. Their scaffolding hides the edifice that is homoeopathy and do they are incapable of perceive it directly and take the scaffolding as the building itself. They hold the model to be the “idol” that they need to worship, without seeing that their statue of materialist-reductionist “understanding” is not the god they hold it for.
Far more important than the model is the capacity to see, to behold directly, the operative principle in nature. The root Greek meaning of the word theoria is “to behold,” not to compute. Elsewhere Goethe remarked,
“Yet how difficult it is not to put the sign in the place of the thing; how difficult to keep the being (das Wesen) always livingly before one and not to slay it with the word.”
Here Goethe is asking for a direct relationship to that which is to be known, which is in our case the nature of homoeopathy. As in the Asian contemplative traditions he valued “direct perception” more highly than valid inference. Can one meet the idea perceptually? How can we keep the Being before us? Not with dianoia or critical reasoning alone.
And this my friends, is what our opponents conveniently overlook or tacitly forget. Their purpose is not to know, but to destroy. Conceptually, they have no idea, because they arrive at their conclusion, not by reason, but by ridicule of that which is but the scaffolding and try to fob off the public by saying how transparent are our placebos. Behind these powerful placebos stands an edifice that has been growing and built upon over 200-plus years into the beautiful building it is today. We must not let their demolition crew demolish it without any resistance.
Kaviraj.
My mother had a patient who chose to take the malaria (is nosode the right word?) when going to Africa to do field work. His colleagues were inoculated normally, and he was the only one who didn’t contract malaria.
I understand M Simpson’s question – why accept that the malaria prevention is not effective while believing in the efficacy of the other remedies, when all are produced the same way.
Your answer seems to say – ‘because malaria is too dangerous to treat homoeopathically as the remedy doesn’t work’ and he’s getting all excited about that and what it seems to suggest about other remedies.
I think that there is of course space for people to use both pharmaceutical medicine and surgery etc along with homeopathy and that they should be able to avail of both choice, and practitioners who can work together respectfully, if nothing else. I think this is what patients want, in the main, and it would be refreshing if practitioners could catch up – it is my experience that homoeopaths are mostly happy to embrace the idea of ‘complementary’ medicine but doctors are less likely to respect their patients’ preferences to use remedies in conjunction with conventional treatment. I don’t quite understand this, as they believe them to be taking nothing more than sugar pills… so where’s the harm?
Melanie, thank you for your comment! Reading that back and forth was driving me crazy, and what you said was right on. And although “M” seemed a bit more informed about homeopathy than most opponents, he still didn’t seem to understand the critical difference between giving a pre-emptive drug vs. treating symptoms. Of course… Cuba has had amazing results with the leptospirosis nosode, but that’s another can of worms.
Great Article – thank you.
It is great to see Doctors like you coming out in support of Homeopathy. Our pediatrician started us on our path to Homeopathy and never looked back. It is easy to know it but unless you try it you will never know how good it is.
[…] Homeopathy. […]
This is very interesting. I don’t understand the rage I perceive in opponents of homeopathy, like if their life depended on making sure to destroy this, or their sanity…
For the past 30 years, assisted by homeopaths, I used homeopathic formulas on animals, mostly dairy cows and some of my farmers are still using them after 10-20-25 years. Why do they spend this money? Because it works!!!
Placebo effect is absent when the patients ignore that there was a treatment put in the drinking water to clean its liver, the cows changes in one week, from yellow hair to white, the black spots are now shiny, miror-like, they eat more and produce more milk. Hundreds of different animals react very well to homeopathic treatments. And plants too.
So, if you don’t plan to call me a liar, how do you explain these facts?
By the way, I was a witness and a participant in the events that led to the disappearance of leptospirosis in Cuba in 2008-9, first on 2.5M and then 8,5M people.
Really enjoyed the presentation at the 99th Faculty of Homeopathy – I’m a new student since lockdown so all your recommendations are welcome – appreciate the insights – many thanks Karen
Thank you Karen. I hope you enjoy the rest of the day. I’ll send you an email to connect
Replying to your short piece in the ARH Winter Journal 2021/22
Hi Bob,
Having just read your “Margaret Mead quotation” in “Homeopathy in Practice,” this winter addition I felt the urge to email you.
“ Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can
change the world. Indeed, its the only thing that ever has” (Margaret Mead)
I’ve been in practice as a homeopath for over 35 years and also instigated a community group in our area over 21 years ago. On two separate occasions within several days of each other both my husband, Peter and I received this same Margaret Mead quote arriving from different places.
It has been the leading quotation on our SouthWestcliff Community headed paper for all of these twenty-plus years and has worked for us as we followed our integrity and it has also inspired me in my homeopathic practice.
Apart from both of us being sent this quote that was never intended for either of us, it warms my heart seeing that you also quoted the wonderful Margaret Mead. It is the only other time I have come across it.
We have made immense changes in our community standing by this steadfast quotation by Margaret.
Lovely that you brought it up as a reminder of the ability of a community to achieve great things. I had a little tear when I read your piece in our magazine.
Kind regards, Suzi Hawkins
Oh thank you Suzi – doesn’t the universe work in wonderful ways?!