Published Online, 2 August 2005, www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1G095b.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 39, No. 9, pp. 1581. DOI 10.1345/aph.1G095b
© 2005 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
Dónal P O'Mathúna, PhD
Lecturer in Health Care Ethics School of Nursing Dublin City
University Dublin 9, Ireland fax 353 (0)1 700 5688
donal.omathuna{at}dcu.ie
Jane M Horgan, PhD
Senior Lecturer School of Computing Dublin City University
Published Online, August 2, 2005. www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1G095b
AUTHORS' REPLY: We thank Kim et al. for their response, which allows us to
clarify our 3 main points. We maintain that
Fleisher's1
criticism of Lewith et
al.'s2 study
is pertinent here. Fleisher does not discuss the use of single versus
combination products, but instead addresses 2 points. The first is that
isopathy uses "the exact substance that causes an illness as a
therapeutic tool for that same illness," whereas homeopathy uses a
substance that produces certain symptoms in healthy people to treat
"individuals experiencing a similar set of symptoms in an innate disease
process."1
In other words, using the cause of a disease (eg, the allergen) to treat the
same disease underlies isopathy and vaccination, but not homeopathy. That
criticism applies to both Lewith et al.'s and Kim et
al.'s3
study.
Fleisher's second point is that in-depth analysis of a patient's individual
symptoms is "fundamental" to homeopathy and "critical to the
selection of the clinically appropriate homeopathic
medicine."1
This criticism applies equally to Kim et al.'s study, which Fleisher
accepts.
The second central concern in our
editorial4
relates to the doses used by Kim et al. and has not been addressed. We raise
the issue of homeopathic dilutions to point out that Kim et al.'s dose fell
within the conventional immunotherapeutic range as opposed to the usual
homeopathic range. We do not mean to imply that homeopathic products are
effective only at ultramolecular potencies, but to point out that the studies
cited by Kim et al. as precedent for their study all used ultramolecular
potencies. We then state that the "switch from a 1 x
10-60 mg/mL dilution to a 1 x 10-6
mg/mL dilution represents a dramatic change and should have been
justified."4
Our third concern about the statistical analysis has been accepted.
For these reasons, we stand by our original conclusion that the results of
Kim et al.'s study are of questionable relevance to homeopathy.
References
- Fleisher MA, McCarter DF. Homeopathy or isopathy? (letter).J Fam Pract
2002;51:984, 986.
- Lewith GT, Watkins AD, Hyland ME, Shaw S, Broomfield JA, Dolan G,
et al. Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people
allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical
trial. BMJ 2002;324:520.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA,
et al. Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis using homeopathic preparation
of common allergens in the southwest region of the US: a randomized,
controlled clinical trial. Ann Pharmacother 2005;39: 617-24.
Epub 1 Mar 2005. DOI 10.1345/aph.1E387[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- O'Mathúna DP, Horgan JM. Seasonal allergic rhinitis study
results of questionable relevance to homeopathy. Ann
Pharmacother 2005;39:736-8. Epub 1 Mar 2005. DOI10.1345/aph.1G095[Free Full Text]
