LETTER A Critical Overview of Homeopathy Giovanni Federspil, MD; Fabio Presotto, MD; and Roberto Vettor, MD TO THE EDITOR: Jonas and colleagues (1) sought to critically appraise homeopathy. This issue, along with the spread of other alternative medical therapies in western countries, is very important because it places all of scientific medicine in doubt (2). Jonas and colleagues’ paper only partially describes homeopathy—it does not define the historical origin of this doctrine and discusses only its pharmacologic and therapeutic aspects. Homeopathy was born in the 18th and 19th centuries, when "medical systems," such as the doctrine of John Brown in England, dominated Europe. According to "medical systems," each pathologic phenomenon consists of 2 opposing concepts (for example, Brown believed that all diseases were "hyposthenic" or "hypersthenic") (3). The doctrine developed by Hahnemann was a medical system in which homeopathic and allopathic remedies were the opposing approaches. This distinction between allopathy and homeopathy now makes no sense because most drugs are given not to suppress symptoms but to break down etiopathogenic sequences. Hahnemann’s theory claims that all chronic diseases can be divided into 3 pathologic forms—psora, lues, and sycosis (which do not correspond to the current nosography)—that arise not from material causes but from a perturbation of the "vital spirit." Accordingly, drugs act not because of their material structure but because of their power to influence the vital force of the living organism. Many orthodox homeopathic physicians still support this theory. Every critical analysis of homeopathy must consider that homeopathy is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical doctrine based on concepts that cannot be defined or proven experimentally (4). Clinical trials of the properties of homeopathic preparations cannot demonstrate the truth of homeopathy or the likelihood of its effectiveness since the doctrine contains metaphysical concepts (5). Thus, Jonas and colleagues’ paper cannot supply any evidence in favor of homeopathy. Author information From University of Padua Medical School Padova I-35128, Italy. Annals of Internal Medicine 21 October 2003 | Volume 139 Issue 8 | Page W-75 Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training. This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics. Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM.