This is a chapter excerpt from: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: a guide to the homeopathic treatment of CFS/M.E., by Diane Solomon DHM DipI.O.N
There is growing evidence that homeopathy works, regardless of the vitriolic attacks it regularly receives by the orthodox medical establishment and the press.
The very vocal naysayers of homeopathy shout, “There’s nothing in them! There is no remaining molecule of the original substance!” No, but there ARE nanoparticles left. (A nanoparticle is one part per billion). Does that sound too small to matter, or to have any effect? Consider this: dogs can smell substances in parts per billion, or even trillion. This is verifiable science and what the legal world calls “Back Letter Law.” If animals can detect a substance in such small quantities, why is it inconceivable that the human immune system can detect a substance even in great dilution?
To bring this point home, I quote from an article by Peter Tyson from NPR’s NOVA from 2012:
“… dogs can detect some odors in parts per trillion. What does that mean in terms we might understand? Well, in her book Inside of a Dog, Alexandra Horowitz, a dog-cognition researcher at Barnard College, writes that while we might notice if our coffee has had a teaspoon of sugar added to it, a dog could detect a teaspoon of sugar in a million gallons of water, or two Olympic-sized pools worth. Another dog scientist likened their ability to catching a whiff of one rotten apple in two million barrels.”
And there are now several pieces of research to confirm the presence of physical substance – nanoparticles – in high homeopathic remedies. Employing Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis, several studies in 2010, 2012, and 2013 showed the presence of these physical particles in the form of nanoparticles of the starting material.
IR Bell and M Koithan, authors of a study published in BMC Complementary Alternative Medicine in October 2012, explained it this way:
“Homeopathic remedies are proposed as source nanoparticles… and are distinguished from conventional bulk drugs in structure, morphology, and functional properties…. This model provides a foundation for theory-driven research on the role of nanomaterials in living systems, mechanisms of homeopathic remedy actions and translational uses in nanomedicine.” 
Randomized control trials (RCTs)
When it comes to researching illness or conditions with homeopathic remedies, a basic problem comes to light, one that is routinely overlooked or misunderstood by critics of homeopathy: orthodox, conventional medicine regards randomized control trials as the be-all and end-all in judging treatment or modality. The essential issue with RCTs, (randomized control trials) is that they are simply not an appropriate or balanced assessment of evidence, when it comes to homeopathic practice. Observational studies are more useful when it comes to the way homeopathy is practiced.
Why? One substance, as tested in standard research trials, aiming for a cure in every patient, goes against the natural grain of homeopathy. This RCT model of measuring drug or treatment efficacy does not allow for the fact that in homeopathy, practitioners tailor remedy choice very specifically to the individual. The prescription is chosen based on a multitude of factors: personality, family health history, lifestyle, emotional health, likes and dislikes of the patient, even whether he or she is warm-blooded or cold-blooded. Therefore, how well a chosen remedy works for a patient is extremely hard to quantify with a randomized control trial.
But, even accepting that RCTs do not adequately or fairly judge homeopathic results, the simple fact is: The practice of homeopathy RCT results are no better or worse than those of orthodox medicine. Homeopaths have been at the mercy of the (almost obsessed) proponents of the RCT method, who continually and loudly state that homeopathic remedies are no better than placebo.
At the beginning of 2015, results of RCTs of homeopathy showed:
- 41% had a balance of positive evidence,
- 5% had a balance of negative evidence, and
- 54% no conclusions could be drawn either way.
At the beginning of 2015, results of RCTs of orthodox medicine showed:
- 44% of reviews concluded the treatment method studied was likely to be positive,
- 7% the treatment was likely to be negative, and
- 49% reported the evidence was non-conclusive.
These two types of methodology, when treated in RCTs, measure up fairly equally! At the same time, it is important to point out that homeopathic remedies achieve their results while “doing no harm,” without dangerous side effects. They also do not increase viral and bacterial resistance, yet improve immunity and well-being.
The bias that is present against homeopathy rages on. We can vent and argue and show evidence endlessly, but it seems the bias is concreted in. And perhaps it stems from an unwillingness to look outside the conventional box. Here is a quote from authors of an article published more than 15 years ago, in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, from December 1999:
“We examined two examples of recent articles on complementary and alternative medicine that appeared in two major medical journals in 1998. One is an editorial on the risks of alternative medicine, published in The New England Journal of Medicine and the other is a study on Therapeutic Touch, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. We evaluated whether information and opinions presented in this editorial and article are objective or not. We found that these examples reflect, at best, misinformation or misunderstanding of the field, or at worst, disingenuousness. We consider the possibility that this apparent bias may be due to the fact that some of the concepts implicit in alternative medicine are outside the current biomedical framework. Yet, it is only by exploring knowledge outside the boundaries of existing dogmas that real (as opposed to incremental) progress can occur.”
All these years later, little has changed. The bias remains.
Neutral Switzerland Says Homeopathy Works
We have come to expect neutrality and lack of bias from Switzerland. I was thrilled, several years ago, when the Swiss government released its long-awaited report on homeopathic medicine. The Swiss government stated in its 2011 report, that after reviewing countless studies, homeopathic treatment is both efficacious and cost-effective. Furthermore, it goes on to recommends that homeopathic treatment be covered by Switzerland’s national health insurance program. This stands as the most comprehensive evaluation of the homeopathic practice of medicine ever produced by a government.
I greatly respect the fact, as well, that even though Switzerland is the home and headquarters of several of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, this did not sway its findings. The highly comprehensive review confirmed that which we homeopaths see in practice day and day out: homeopathic high-potency remedies do cause balancing or normalizing effects on living organisms, and lead to confirmable changes in cells and/or tissues.
Homeopathy and CFS
Many respected homeopathic practitioners have written regarding their clinical findings regarding CFS. Dr. M. Jenkins wrote, in the British Homeopathic Journal, that the most commonly required remedies for ME (CFS) include Mercurius Sol, Natrum Carbonicum, Kali Phosphoricum, Zincum, Picricum Acidum, Phosphoric Acidum, and Manganum. He went on to discuss his view that although acknowledging the need to choose constitutional remedies for his CFS patients, he felt the syndrome had an organic base. Dr. N.G Dimitriadis, in “Homeopathic Links,” reports many successful cases of CFS treatment, including those that did not fit into a symptom picture of a polycrest remedy. Dr. B. Rao, as well, discussed ME in March 1991 edition of Homeopathic Heritage. He emphasizes the part the psoric miasm plays in this syndrome, and lists the most commonly used remedies, in his opinion. They are Phosphoric Acidum, Sabadilla, Sulphuricum Acidum, Veratrum, and Zincum.
In 1995. a questionnaire was sent out to 320 registered UK homeopathic practitioners, 71 of which were returned with some interesting data. The vast majority of these practitioners (69 of 71) felt they had been helpful to their CFS patients, but few felt their cure was fully established. The questionnaire revealed that the practitioners found that if patients were homeopathically treated within 2 years of onset of illness, prognosis was for a 90% recovery. Most respondents felt that constitutional prescribing was the treatment of choice, but stressed the necessity to address miasmatic indications, and deal with acute conditions in a supportive capacity.
In this questionnaire, the remedies that proved to be the most effective were, in descending order of frequency of mention, Carcinosin (14), Phosphoricum Acidum (11), Tuberculinum (7), Gelsemium (6), Natrum Muriaticum (6), Sulphur (5), Pulsatilla (5), Calcarea Carbonica (5), Phosphorus (5), plus 49 other remedies.
This questionnaire confirmed what other practitioners have long found to be true with regard to CFS. The remarkable consensus from these practitioners is that ME (CFS) is a disease, which almost uniformly affects high achievers, who consistently drive themselves, overwork, and are afraid of failure or weakness. A trigger, such as a stressful trauma, death in the family, severe disappointment, or viral illness, can be the last straw in this stressed, often nutritionally deficient person.
In 2004, Weatherley-Jones, etc al, conducted another study into the homeopathic treatment of CFS. It involved 103 patients who received monthly consultations with a homeopathic practitioner, over a six-month period. The results: patients in the homeopathic medicine group showed significantly more improvement in general fatigue. The authors stated, “More people in the homeopathic medicine group showed clinical improvement on all primary outcomes.”
Another interesting piece of research is the yearlong study reported in the International Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (February through April 1996). This trial was coordinated by Robert Awdry, a member of the Society of Homeopaths in London. Conducted by the London Homeopathic clinic under the auspices of the London College of Classical Homeopathy, it was overseen by respected homeopathic physicians, academics, and researchers. A randomized, double-blind trial involving 64 patients tested the effectiveness of single selected homeopathic remedies.
The results of the study showed that 33% of those patients taking homeopathic remedies experienced greater improvement than those taking placebos. The response to the remedies was very wide; some patients did not respond at all while others made an almost total recovery. From the response charts of the patients, 20% “recovered,” 11% were “largely unchanged,” 6% were “slightly better,” 4% were “greatly improved,” and 30% were “improved.” The relapsing nature of this syndrome was noted, even in those who experienced improvement. The younger the patient, the greater was the likelihood of recovery. The shorter the duration of ill health, the greater was the chance of favorable outcome.
In analyzing these results, many thoughts come to mind. Mr. Awdry puts forth the possibility, in his discussion of the study published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, that the “most accurate similimum remedies have not yet been identified.” It is also highly possible that life style changes must be made in order to truly effect a cure, especially with regard to the “driven, A-type nature” of most CFS patients. Diet must certainly be investigated, especially with regard to the allergic and Candida-inducing components.
Also, it must be stated that these trials fully tested the abilities of the prescribing homeopathic practitioners, as well as the concept of classical homeopathy itself. It would be very interesting to see studies performed with complex homeopathy as a comparison treatment modality. In my experience, a mixture of the two modalities, plus general health/diet improvements, would effect the greatest improvement in patients.
The most up-to-date and complete resource for the research into homeopathy is Dana Ullman’s ebook entitled, “Evidence Based Homeopathic Family Medicine, available on his website, Homeopathic.com.
 “The evidence for homeopathy: There is a growing body of clinical evidence to show that homeopathy has a positive effect.” British Homeoapthic Association. Web August 12 2015 http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/evidence/the-evidence-for-homeopathy/ Web. July 6 2015
 Peter Tyson Dogs’ Dazzling Sense of Smell, Nova ScienceNow. Oct 10, 2012. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-sense-of-smell.html. Accessed Nov 19 2015
 Chikramane PS, Suresh AK et al. “Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective.” Homeopathy. 2010 Oct;99(4):231-42. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2010.05.006. Accessed Nov 20 2015
 Bell IR, Koithan M “A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system.” BMC Comp Altern Med, 2012 Oct 22;12:191. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-191.
 Chikramane PS1, Kalita D et al. “Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: a nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation.” Langmuir. 2012 Nov 13;28(45):15864-75. doi: 10.1021/la303477s. Epub 2012 Nov 1. Accessed Nov 20 2015
 “The evidence base,” Faculty of Homeopathy. Web. July 6 2015 http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/
 El Dib RP, Atallah AN, et al. “Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice; (2007) 13:689–692.
 Dana Ullman, “The Swiss Government’s Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine” Huffington Post, 02/15/2012 Accessed Nov 15 2015
 Awdry, Robert. “Homeopathy and chronic fatigue- the search for proof.” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Feb 1996 page 19
 Ibid. page 21
 Ibid., page 21
 Weatherley Jones ,E,.Thompson, E.A. “Placebo Control Trial in CAM . The placebo controlled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine; observations from research experience of individualized homeopathy treatment.” Homeopath .vol.93, (4) (2004) -p.186-189
 Awdry, Robert Homeopathy and chronic fatigue- the search for proof. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, March 1996 page 13
This is an excerpt from: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: a guide to the homeopathic treatment of CFS/M.E., by Diane Solomon DHM DipI.O.N
By Dr. David Baltimore on November 26, 2015
“Having a friend with CFS, I have witnessed her struggle, over more than a decade, with the traditional orthodox medical approach – they have been little to no help to her at all. Her deep dives in alternative and complementary healthcare have provided more relief. She has yet to go to a good homeopath, and I am suggesting to her that she take this book to a homeopath and get to work!This book focuses on the homeopathic treatment of CFS, and what a powerhouse of information it holds. It is clear, concise, well laid out, easy to read and understand, and chock full of links and resources.
As for the naysayers of homeopathy, they (loudly) claim that high dilutions of a homeopathic remedy have no molecules left of the of the original substance. Ms Solomon’s section on “Homeopathy and Research” addresses that point. She presents several recent pieces of research that confirm there ARE nanoparticles (1 part per billion) present in 30c potencies of remedies, and higher. This quote from the book sums it up: “Dogs can smell substances in parts per billion or even trillion. . This is verifiable science and what the legal world calls ‘Back Letter Law.’ If animals can detect a substance in such small quantities, why is inconceivable that the human immune system can detect a substance even in great dilution?”
If you have CFS or know someone with the illness, you really should check out this book.”