We have over 3,000 medicines to treat a very wide variety of diseases, chronic ailments and acute conditions. Every patient receives the medicine that best fits all of their physical symptoms and emotional patterns. Please make a list of all your symptoms before your appointment.
You can schedule your own apointment:
We can also do a long distance consultation, call to set this up.
The first hour is covered by Regence Blue Shield (Bridgespan, HMA, Uniform Medical) or
Premera BlueCross (LifeWise/Anthem), or First Choice and Kaiser (Only if contracted through First Choice).
The last half hour is not covered and the cost for this is $100. The cost of the medicine is usually $25.
If you don't have insurance the cash fee for a first visit is $300. You can pay with a credit card, PayPal, Venmo or Zelle.
Licensed naturopath - specialty: homeopathic medicine.
Dr Olsen obtained his medical degree from Bastyr University. He has been in practice for over 35 years.
If you would like to learn homeopathy for first aid, then ask about the book and a few remedies to get you started.
Licensed naturopath - specialty: Homeopathic medicine, Craniosacral, and Ayurveda.
Dr Haridevi works with a wide range of patients and has a special interest working with complex pediatric cases such as Autism and PANs/PANDAs.
Like Cures Like
We use single remedies to create self healing.
First aid ailments should be improving within minutes to hours.
Acute ailments such as the flu or an infection should be 40 to 70% better within 24 hours.
Chronic ailments should be 40 to 60% better within a week.
Most cases I can solve, some are very difficult and a few I neve
Like Cures Like
We use single remedies to create self healing.
First aid ailments should be improving within minutes to hours.
Acute ailments such as the flu or an infection should be 40 to 70% better within 24 hours.
Chronic ailments should be 40 to 60% better within a week.
Most cases I can solve, some are very difficult and a few I never solved.
Homeopathy was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann is 1790. I recommend reading: The Organon of Medicine by Hahnemann or The Science of Homeopathy by George Vithoulkas.
While Taking a Remedy Avoid the Following
Caffeine, Essential oils such as camphor, menthol, cough drops, strong medicinal herbs. Decaf tea and decaf coffee are okay in moderation.
The clinic is located at 401 Union Ave, Snohomish WA, 98290. The entrance to the clinic is on the ground level, under the tree flags above the door at the end of the driveway. The driveway is off of 4th Street.
If you park at exactly 401 Union Ave, then walk around the corner and down the street till you come to the driveway.
The Orthodoxy of ‘Modern’ Medicine Continues to Undermine the Duties of the Health Practitioner, Allowing for the Unnecessary Worsening of Chronic Diseases, Incorrect Treatment of Acute Diseases and Worsening of Our Overall Health
Most of us are listening, reading or watching some sort of news media from one to three hours a day, and there is no doubt it has an enduring effect on us. Drug advertising, health stories, print media, reports on social media, car talk radio, podcasts, and health opinions from governments give us all the same message: If you have a disease, treat it with drug X. If it doesn’t work, we will find you drug Y or Z in the future and you will be smiling again – we promise. But unfortunately this is a big lie because drugs will never cure any illness.
They may temporarily help some of the symptoms, but this is not a cure, when the drug is stopped the symptoms return or a new disease process starts because the original symptoms were suppressed.
The only cure to any illness is self healing. According to modern medicine the science of self-healing is a subject not worth discussing. Unfortunately, If you have a chronic illness you know that neither drug X, Y, or Z will likely solve your problems and will rarely lead to a cure. Those smiling people on the advertisements are actors. The fact that this message is repeated over and over again, directly and indirectly, is mind-numbing, alarming, destructive, and dangerous to our long term survival. It will also create a lot of unnecessary suffering. During this most recent pandemic, how many news reports are about drugs to treat the illness and how many are about supporting specific self-healing abilities? Why is there no meaningful discussion of how to make individualized self-healing stronger from a scientific point of view? It is our immune system’s self-healing ability that is keeping more than ninety nine percent of us alive. But the word “healing” is not being used in the media because the only type of healing that occurs is individual self-healing.This idea that we should be supporting self-healing is seen as radical by the media and modern medicine and they are trying to eradicate it from our social discourse, educational institutions, vocabulary, and understanding. Why? The free media is supposed to be in the public interest, not just about forwarding one limited mindset. But the modern media is not interested in a well rounded discussion. One has to again ask, why?
When a college graduate applies to medical school, they are likely excited with the idea that very soon, as a doctor or research scientist, they will become involved or pursue the idea that a cure for a patient can be found. Finding a cure means that some sort of self-healing will take place, the disease will be eradicated, and no drugs or further medicines will be needed. Because self-healing defines the cure. This is not, however, what happens once they enter medical school. From the very beginning students are told that “healing” exists in theory, but that’s the end of the discussion and it’s “not what we do here, so get used to it.” The science of self-healing is a dangerous idea because it opens up Pandora’s Box that leads to other dangerous ideas, such as – that all healing is self-healing and that if there is self-healing then there must be ways to study it, make it stronger and smarter in a specific way for each patient. This would lead to a cure for an individual patient and that is unacceptable. Students instead are taught to ignore the individual capacity for self-healing and instead focus on “cures” in the form of drugs that act upon, rather than with the body. Medical schools are not in the least bit interested in the science of self-healing. It would mean finding the cause of each illness in each patient. That is a scandalous idea that only quacks and agitators would want to solve. Instead, students become the minions (at their own psychological risk) of the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry with some of those profits funneled back into the schools to keep them on track. If a medical student or research scientist persists with ideas of self healing as an objective, they are vigorously ridiculed, their funding revoked and black listed.
The result I believe contributes to doctors with a high incidence of depression. How is this possible and why would a whole “culture of science” be so afraid of this most basic of human functions? Why attack and suppress this information? We have not black listed the study of endocrinology, learning disorders or digestion, so why would we blacklist this important subject? Self-healing comes from homeostasis, meaning self regulation. This is a word that modern science is still allowed to use. Living things are self organized, and when they are very self organized, when the homeostasis is working one hundred percent, then a person is able to self heal on a daily basis. They can stay physiologically tuned (positive mood), display no abnormal lab values, and feel physically well with no symptoms. There is a state of vitality and a dynamic sense of emotional well being. We can say that when homeostasis is functioning at one hundred percent then self healing is also one hundred percent. But these are somehow very dangerous ideas. You can’t go to medical school and expect to study that, it’s too radical. It means a reporter or a department at a medical school or research facility is forbidden to take the next logical step and educate us or study which medicines could make homeostasis stronger. It is a line drawn in the sand by our collective medical, media and culture never to cross.
If you dare to study self healing, your career is ruined and you will be accused of quackery. Why would a medical student or research scientist want to risk that? I know of only four and they all met the same fate. Again I ask why? Science is the pursuit of facts and truths that are waiting to be discovered. Science has no beliefs, no emotion, no fears, but if you want to see anger or disdain, try asking your doctor why modern medicine doesn’t study self healing? The rage is palpable. You will instantly be labeled as a crazy patient, woowoo, a noncompliant, or an agitator. The media, governments, and the hallowed halls of research institutions and medical schools have all gone along with this mindset on a global scale. It has become part of who we are. Our culture is telling us over and over: “It’s okay to keep using drugs to treat chronic diseases until you die; it’s okay that many of them produce horrific side effects; it’s okay if you are never cured, just get used to it, welcome it, expect it, embrace it. If your chronic illness gets worse, it’s okay, just get another prescription. It’s okay to be suffering all the time; it’s okay to never feel wellness; it’s okay to not have self healing, because it does not exist. Definitely don’t think about it or ask questions. Don’t cross the line. As uncomfortable as it is, I am going to step over that line and explain what is on the other side. It is more scientific than pretending nothing is there. Perhaps you can see that there is nothing to be afraid of. The concept that homeostasis exists as a part of the science of living things is agreed upon.
The development and maintenance of living things is not random. For example, our hearts do not beat randomly. They speed up when we exercise because we need more oxygen, they beat more slowly when we sleep. The course of the body’s development over many years, from one cell to a fully functioning adult, and the maintenance of every structure and function, follows a plan. I call this a reference plan or reference image. Living things don’t develop or maintain themselves in a healthy state by random changes. There has to be something that senses, evaluates, and reacts to the environment in an intelligent fashion. This is not the brain, because when we were one cell or even a few hundred thousand cells at the beginning of our lives, there was no brain formed yet. But that ball of cells still had a very clear idea of what direction it was going to take to create each of us as individuals, with a unique identity it could maintain for over 75 years in most cases. It’s not the DNA either. DNA is just a book of templates to make strings of amino acids. There still has to be an author, the reference image, which works with the body’s homeostasis to know how to fold proteins, which genes to open and which to close to make a specific type of cell, where to put that cell, arrange it with others, and when to stop making those cells at the right moment.
This reference image is very connected to the DNA, and connected to every other structure and function of the body. For example if you take out a gene which is needed to make a certain cell structure, the reference image will use other genes to work around the deletion. The end result is once again achieved to maintain normal function. If you take all the DNA out of a cell, it will keep functioning until the structures of that cell wear out. The reference image keeps all these structures working as long as possible. Our innate intelligence, this image of ourselves, is able to do three things: sense the current conditions; evaluate the data and decide if it matches the healthy reference image; and make adjustments to maintain health and keep us alive. It operates if we are awake or asleep and is our essential life and health-creating function. When this reference image (the innate life-force) detaches completely, due to illness or old age, our life is over. The connections between our body and the reference image can become weak, break, or become too exaggerated, leading to the multitude of illness possibilities. It defines the illness. Imagine a classical orchestra. The instruments are all tuned, the musicians play the music in front of them perfectly, and the conductor fine-tunes the performance. The result is beautiful music for all to enjoy – perfect health in the analogy. Now, imagine that some of the instruments are out of tune; some musicians did not make it to the performance; some instruments are broken or lost; and the conductor was disturbed to the point of not doing his or her best conducting by slowing it down or speeding it up at random. The music would not sound right, but it is not the music written on the page (our reference image) that is broken, it is the connection between all the parts of the orchestra that has issues. The reference image of a living being can’t break. If it did, there could never be self-healing. But if we arrange for all the musicians to arrive in a stable frame of mind, train them, feed them, practice the music and lead them, then healthy music will play again. But our culture has lost its interest in this concept and does not allow anyone to study it in our mainstream research institutions. That is neglect and we are all paying the price. Sometimes all that is needed for self-healing is basic nutrition, a safe warm place to live, and a pleasant emotional environment. But sometimes, even when these criteria are met, the disease process continues. This means that one or more musicians are no longer present, or some other vital function within them has become compromised. The connection between the plans (the music on the page) and the final result is lost.
How can it be restored? Definitely not by giving the same drug to each person and definitely not by using large doses of drugs which are prescribes all to easily by most doctors. Self-healing has limits, but in most cases homeostasis can be restored 100%, even to where it is stronger than ever before. Then, no drugs are needed and we can experience well being in all aspects. The body is once again a complete symphony and tuned to perfection. First of all, the reference image is not visible. In fact, the visible spectrum is a very small part of human reality. For example, gravity, electricity, microwaves, heat energy, magnetic waves, radio waves, computer zeros and ones, the forces holding every atom together, dark matter, dark energy, quantum fields, noise, emotions, thoughts and consciousness, they are all invisible. We can only experience the effects of them, not see them. Nature has exact laws for all these unseen forces and one of them is the force of healing and homeostasis. If it was not exact in all of its subtle manifestations, then health and orderly cell differentiation could never be achieved. We are living proof that it can be. What are the laws of homeostasis? The first is based on the fact that the connection from the mind and body to their source, the dynamic reference image, is finite. You can’t insult it with too many drugs, either recreational or prescribed, or too much stress forever. It will eventually become weak and break in a very specific area, that area which is your weakest link. Once it’s broken, an acute or chronic illness begins to develop. Large doses of any drug can cause a new permanent disease. The broken link can gradually repair itself if the stress is taken away and if you can figure out what is needed for that broken healing system to repair itself. But this is where many of the difficulties come into play.
Often, just taking the stress away and giving general support is not enough. Good counseling or a self-help book does not usually cure suicidal depression. Migraine headaches are not cured by eating organic foods. Unfortunately, this is the story for all chronic ailments which currently afflict over ninety percent of our populations. Very healthy choices are a good start. I am in favor of organic foods for many reasons, but to cure a specific healing system – to connect it back to its reference image – is not that easy. We know this because everyone with a chronic illness has tried lifestyle approaches with limited success. Another option is to try herbal medicines and traditional natural cures. Again, these sometimes work, but why only sometimes and only with certain people? Enough times it helps so that the success stories are perpetuated, but only one out of every five hundred times does it bring about a very good result. The other four hundred and ninety nine are disappointed. This is because of the second law of homeostasis: the medicine needed to repair the connection of a specific healing system is very exact to each person. Most likely, for each illness such as depression, migraine headache, eczema, ADD, heartburn, the Covid flu, (any disease) there are well over one thousand possible cures for each category. But each specific remedy in exactly the correct small dose will re-establish a specific connection leading to a real cure. In my experience the cure has to be 99 or 100 percent exact.
Law number three: small doses are stimulants. If you can find the correct medicine in a small dose it can lead to a cure. The homeostasis that is lost can be stimulated to once again work normally. If you study the work of Edward Calabrese and the hundreds of other scientists who study Hormesis then it is clear that there is no exception to this law. So far they have found over 80,000 examples of this phenomenon, that small doses are always stimulants to homeostasis. What if we could match up each substance in a small dose to the person who needs it? There is no limit to what we could truly cure. I mean cure in the real sense of the word, cure so that no more medicine is needed and one is made stronger than ever before.
These three laws: 1. Large doses of any medicine eventually create a new illness. 2. The medicine that is truly curative needs to very specific for each person. 3. The small dose is always a stimulant. All three of these need to be studied in detail so that a complete system of healing can be realized. For over two hundred years this has been gradually and haphazardly happening, it’s called homeopathy. We now have over four thousand medicines studied so that each one is specific enough to be exactly prescribed, in small doses, to re-connect homeostasis, which then allows self-healing to take place.
Homeopathy is used by health practitioners in most countries of the world, but is officially considered quackery and not seriously studied. I have used this method for over 30 years now with about an 80% success rate. I am wondering what would happen if we had twenty thousand medicines to choose from, or a hundred thousand? Unfortunately, we are tragically stuck in the Dark Ages of medicine. We are in love with the idea of mechanical drugs used in large doses that mostly poison us, and further destroy the vital connections that keep us alive. The first step towards a change in how you think about medicine is to purchase a small vial of Arnica Montana 30c for under $8. Take some after an injury such as a bruise, sprained ankle, or sports injury. Arnica has been the most used homeopathic remedy for the past 200 years because it is highly effective at stimulating self-healing for injuries. Once you experience how fast and effectively it works to stop pain from, you can learn the next eleven most common remedies for first aid. Remedies for first aid: and easy to learn: for food poisoning, burn pain, sunstroke, cuts, crushing wounds, sudden grief, panic attack, shock after a car accident or near death experience, pain from a broken bone, and one for anaphylaxis. They have all been used now for over 200 years. Why not learn about them as well, your family will appreciate it! The next step is to seek out a classical homeopathic doctor. If they spend a minimum of one and a half hours for the first consultation and give one medicine then they are practising classical homeopathic medicine. Again I ask why is our cultural paradigm in medicine limited to exclude the science of self healing? The simple answer is that it doesn’t have to be. You can make a personal decision to cross the line and enjoy the benefits.
Case One: Brian is 53 years old. He happened to be working on a roof, slipped and fell on his back over a metal rod. The pain was severe as three of the vertebrae transverse processes were broken off. There was no way to surgically attach the pieces of bone back onto the vertebrae. For this condition the routine homeopathic remedy is Symphytum. “Injuries of the bones are healed most promptly with Symphytum. 30c. A DICTIONARY OF PRACTICAL MATERIA MEDICA By John Henry CLARKE, M.D. Within a few days Brian was able to work again without pain. A few months later he came back to me asking if there was anything that could be done about his sleeping problems. For over 30 years he was not able to get to sleep until 3 a.m. In our literature there are about 500 remedies listed to treat this symptom. Brian was a person who loved to work but he was also quite impatient and easily irritated. Under the listing of Coffea we see the following symptoms: Sleeplessness, from over-excitability of mind and body. We know that coffee improves concentration, ambition and congeniality. But taken in larger amounts it can create irritability. In the homeopathic doses it does the opposite – it activates the sleep cycle and calms the nervous system in general. After a few doses of Coffea 30c Brian was sleeping well and now several months later he is able to get to sleep by 11 p.m and wakes refreshed. He is no longer irritable and feels more patient to the extent that he was able to stop his medication for irritability. Brian was becoming a believer in homeopathic medicine. I then treated his chronic heartburn with a remedy called Robina 30c and then tendinitis with Bryonia 30c. On our last visit he said to me: Steve I want you to know I am happy for the first time in years and I have no symptoms at all. B: Everett Washington 2013
Case Two: Kendra (not her real name) is 52 years old. She comes to me for a chronic bladder infection which she has had for about four years. The symptoms of this condition include: Burning with urination and chill with urination. Over her life-time she developed an allergy to the antibiotics and to latex. She also has hay fever – to pink flowers, yellow flowers and an allergy to perfume. When around these items she will sneeze and get a runny nose. My evaluation was that her immune system was too reactive in some areas (allergy tendencies) and not reactive enough in other areas (the chronic bladder infection). I needed to find a medicine which could make her immune system work with greater intelligence. The clue to her case was that her symptoms were worse from cold and better from warmth. Even during urination as we see above she would experience a severe chilling of the whole body. If one makes a study of the homeopathic remedy Sabadilla, one can see that it treats hay fever and bladder infections and a tendency to feeling too cold. In Clarke’s dictionary1 it is listed for: Shivering or external coldness. Burning in urethra when urinating. Violent spasmodic sneezing. Great masses of white and transparent mucus are blown from nose. The people who need this medicine feel cold easily and feel better from warm drinks. Two weeks later and after a few doses of this medicine the bladder infection symptoms were 95% better. Over the next few weeks the allergy to flowers also improved greatly to the point that she had no more reaction to flowers. Three months later she called me to say that the bladder and allergy symptoms were still better but a tooth had cracked and an abscess had developed. The swelling on her lower jaw was about the size of a golf ball. Her dentist could not give her a root canal until after the infection was resolved so she came to me for this condition as she did not want to take antibiotics. I made a study of the situation and decided to give her Myristica sibifera. This medicine was first studied by Benoit Mure in the 1800’s. It was used to treat many different situations of abscess: here is one case listed in Clarke’s dictionary2: An old man, 87, was seized with sudden arthritis of the shoulder, with intense fever. Allopaths first diagnosed it as osteomyelitis, but later a surgeon was called in, who pronounced it an arthritis purulent from the onset. After he had passed through the hands of eminent old-school authorities in Paris, who said nothing could be done, Cartier (homeopathic doctor) was sent for, and found the shoulder quite full of pus, and a particularly painful spot on the scapula, at a point where the bone was said by one authority to be attacked. Myristica. seb.3, five drops three times a day, was given. In ten days there was no longer suppuration, the size of the joint had become normal, and the tender spot was gone. Myristica. seb. has evidently great power over the suppurative process as affecting joints. Our patient Kendra showed improvement within a few hours of taking the Myristica. Two days later all the swelling was resolved and the infection could no longer be detected. She received the root canal without incident. 1. A DICTIONARY OF PRACTICAL MATERIA MEDICA By John Henry CLARKE, M.D. – Sabadilla. 2. Clark ibid, Myristica. K: Snohomish Wa, 2013
Case Three: About six years ago our daughter had a prounounced issue with constipation and a fear of having bowel movements. She had gone as long as 12 days without a successful movement and was quite unhappy & uncomfortable After one visit with Dr. Olsen and three or four doses of a constitutional remedy she was totally cured. Her problem was completely resolved and never returned. Amy and Michail L. Olympia Wa. .
Case Four: Before I consulted Dr. Olsen I had a metabolic disorder characterized by eating binges.Even after a big meal I could never feel full.This is now greatly improved along with my joint pains and asthma. M.G. Snohomish, WA
Case Five: . When I first started seeing Dr. Olsen in 2003, I was very depressed and suicidal.I was having grieving issues with the loss of my father, due to A.L.L. Leukemia.Now, I am in great health and relieved of my fathers passing. S. L. Everett, WA . Wow! … I have truly been blessed by you and your homeopathic knowledge. Dr. Olsen healed my … chronic allergy attacks of the sinus, bronchitis and asthma, and reoccurring hives.He also healed my paralyzing depression and suppressed resentment. I have learned to be assertive in a positive and healthy manor, which stabilized by marriage.On top of all that he treated me for grief of two tragic deaths within 10 months.I have recommended family and friends to this wonderful doctor of homeopathy medicine. D.F Lake Stevens, WA .
Case Six: Female 18 years old. It is a pleasure for me to share my “story of health” that I have experienced under the care of Dr. Olsen. As a baby I experienced reactions to allergens.Eggs, milk and perfumed diapers/soap resulted in the outbreak of eczema on my body.The allergies manifested themselves as bedwetting when I was 2 – 3 yrs old and then into hay fever.The list of allergens grew toinclude grass, weeds, pollen, dust mites, dogs, cats, horses, nuts, all meat except chicken and citrus fruits. By June of every year my immune system was so exhausted I would catch any bug going around, even pneumonia.From ages 10 – 13 I experienced alopecia areata (which can be quite scary to an adolescent!)By then I was also asthmatic and used a puffer whenever physical exertion was required. I was 16 years old when I met Dr. Olsen, and by then I suffered constant nausea, hives, histamine bumps, frequent severe headaches (instantly to perfume or smoke), finger pads cracking open, cold clammy hands, motion distortion, nail biting, no tolerance for heat or salt and gagged on water. Dr. Olsen asked many questions, accepted every symptom as important, and listened intently to everything I had to say in a relaxed and non-rushed manner.He was very positive and I found it very hard to believe my ears when he said I would be free of the symptoms – cured!Everything was explained to me so I could understand what was wrong and how we were going to tackle the problems.I was prescribed one homeopathic remedy while my body began to heal and the layers of symptoms began to disappear! A wonderful bonus was that a bad case of plantar warts (that had only increased and spread when I’d tried having them frozen off in the family doctor’s office) just disappeared without any special attention to them. Within a year, and less than 10 visits to see Dr. Olsen, I gradually became symptom free, enjoying excellent health.I am now 18 years old and only use my homeopathic remedy on an infrequent basis, strictly for maintenance as needed. What a joy to eat all foods, actually crave water and love the heat!I look forward to Spring with it’s beautiful floral display rather than dread the 2 – 3 month ‘pollen flu’. Dr. Olsen is very knowledgeable, supportive and professional.I highly recommend his services to everyone seeking better health. V.PMaple Ridge, B.C.May, 2000
Research and Homeopathy
If you understand this video, then you understand that water can hold within itself an exact code. When this is given to a person it can restore a healing pattern.
Showing the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies The following information was adapted from works by Dana Ullman, M.P.H. Some helpful definitions before you continue: • Double-blind: a study in which neither the researcher nor the participant know if either a placebo or a drug were given • Placebo: a sugar pill or similar non-drug substance with the appearance of the real drug. • Placebo-controlled: a study with two groups; one given a placebo and the other the drug. • Randomized: the participants in the study are placed in either group randomly to create a more equal mix of traits and factors between groups. . Clinical research An increasing number of controlled trials demonstrate that the homeopathic treatment method is valid and not a mere placebo effect. Research on the homeopathic treatment of asthma that has been published in The Lancet (December 10, 1994) suggests that relief is in sight for asthma sufferers. Research conducted by professors at the University of Glasgow, Europe’s largest medical school, indicates that those patients given an exceedingly small homeopathic doses of whatever substance to which they are most allergic can provide significant relief within the first week of treatment. The authors called this unique method of individualizing medicines ‘homeopathic immunotherapy’. This double blind, placebo controlled trial showed that over 82% of patients who were given a homeopathic remedy improved, while only 38% of patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. A homeopathic physician and a conventional physician assessed the patients. When the patients and doctors were asked if they felt the patient received the homeopathic medicine or the placebo, both the patients and the doctors tended to guess correctly. This shows that both the patients and doctors were able to see and feel the differences between the placebo and the homeopathic remedy. The researchers utilized conventional allergy testing to determine what substances the asthmatic patients were most allergic, and then gave a 30th potency of this substance to half of the subjects in a double-blind study (neither the experimenters nor the subjects knew who was given the medicine and who was given a placebo). The 30th potency refers to the number of times the medicine was diluted 1:10 with distilled water, with vigorous shaking in between each dilution. Along with their asthma study, the authors performed a meta analysis (an analysis by a third scientist, or group of scientists, to critique the methods and findings of the original scientists), reviewing all of the data from the three studies which totaled 202 subjects. The researchers found a similar pattern in the three studies. Improvement begins within the first week and continues through to the end of the trial four weeks later (research has not yet investigated longer time frames). The results of this meta analysis were so stunning that the authors concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or controlled clinical trials do not. Because modern science bases itself on controlled clinical trials, it is more likely that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective. Homeopathy had previously been considered an unproven medical treatment. However, Dutch researchers, none of whom were homeopaths, published a review of 107 studies in the British Medical Journal (February 9, 1991), 81 of which showed that the homeopathic medicines worked. While most of the experiments had one or more flaws, 22 of these studies were considered of a high caliber, and 15 of them showed efficacy of the homeopathic medicines. The researchers concluded, “The amount of positive evidence came as a surprise to us. The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications.” The Lancet published the most significant and comprehensive review of homeopathic research ever published in its September 20, 1997, issue. This article was a meta analysis of 89 blinded, randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials. The authors conclude that the clinical effects of homeopathic medicines are not simply the results of placebo. The researchers uncovered 186 studies, 119 of which were double blind and/or randomized placebo control trials, and 89 of which met pre defined criteria for inclusion into a pooled meta analysis. The researchers found that by pooling the 89 trials together, homeopathic medicines had more than 2 times greater (2.45) effect than the placebo. The researchers found 22 high caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy of these natural medicines, suggesting that the better designed and performed the studies were, the higher the likelihood that the medicines were found to be effective. Although people unfamiliar with research may be surprised to learn that most of the studies on homeopathy were flawed in one significant way or another, research in conventional medicine during the past 25 years has had a similar percentage of flawed studies. With this knowledge, the researchers of the meta analysis on homeopathy concluded, “The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications.” Another recent study, published in the American Journal of Pediatrics, tested homeopathic medicine for the treatment of a condition recognized to be the most serious public health problem today, childhood diarrhea. Over 5 million children die each year as the result of diarrhea, mostly in nonindustrialized countries. Conventional physicians prescribe oral rehydration therapy (ORT, a salt solution that helps children maintain fluid balance), but this treatment does not fight the infection that underlies the diarrhea. Conducted in Nicaragua in association with the University of Washington and the University of Guadalajara, this randomized double blind, placebo controlled study of 81 children showed that an individually chosen remedy provided statistically significant improvement of the children’s diarrhea as compared to those given a placebo. Children given the homeopathic remedy were cured of their infection 20% faster than those given a placebo, and the sicker children responded most dramatically to the homeopathic treatment. A total of 18 different remedies were used in this trial, individually chosen based on each child’s symptoms. Another study that involved individualized homeopathic care was in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The study involved 46 patients. Two homeopathic physicians prescribed individually chosen medicines to each patient, though only half of them were given the real remedy, while the other half were given a placebo. The study found that 82% of those given an individualized homeopathic remedy experienced some relief of symptoms, while only 21% of those given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. These same researchers next conducted a more sophisticated trial in the treatment of primary fibromyalgia. This double blind, placebo controlled, crossover trial (where the placebo group then receive the drug, and the drug group receive the placebo) admitted only those patients who fit the symptoms of Rhus tox. The researchers found that this constituted 42% of the patients interviewed. One half of these 30 patients were given Rhus tox 6c during the first phase of the experiment, while the other half were given a placebo. During the second phase, those patients initially given the medicine were given a placebo, and those patients initially given a placebo were now given the homeopathic remedy. Researchers determined at the beginning of the experiment that improvement in pain and sleeplessness were the outcome measures most important in evaluating the results of this trial,. The results showed that 25% more of the patients experienced pain relief when taking the homeopathic remedy compared to when they were given a placebo and nearly 50% had improved sleep when taking the remedy. This type of crossover design is considered a sophisticated type of research because it compares each person when using a treatment with the same person when using a placebo. Most other research compares two supposedly similar groups of people, but researchers commonly acknowledge that it is difficult and perhaps impossible to get two exactly similar groups of people. The limitation of the crossover design for homeopathic treatment, however, is that most homeopathic medicines provide long term benefits, so that once a person stops taking a homeopathic remedy he or she may still continue to improve, even in the placebo stage of the trial. Low potency medicines, such as the 6c used in the above described experiment, generally have short acting effects, while higher potency medicines generally have increasingly longer term effects. Some skeptics and journalists inaccurately report that homeopathy is primarily used to treat minor health problems. On the contrary, homeopaths primarily treat chronic ailments for which conventional medicine has not provided effective treatment. One example of a chronic and serious problem shown by a controlled study to be effectively treated by homeopathy is diabetic retinitis (retinitis is a common complication of diabetes in which there is an inflammation of the retina causing impairment of sight, perversion of vision, swelling, discharge from the eye, and sometimes hemorrhages into the retina). This double blind, randomized, placebo controlled study on 60 patients used Arnica 5c. The results of this study showed that 47% of patients given Arnica 5c experienced improvement in central blood flow to the eye, while only 1% of patients given the placebo experience this improvement. Further, 52% of patients given Arnica 5c experienced improvement in blood flow to other parts of the eye, while only 1.5% of those given the placebo experienced a similar degree of improvement. An example of significant results from a homeopathic combination remedy (one containing more than one homeopathic remedy, making it impossible to determine which medicine is doing the healing) was in the treatment of women during their ninth month of pregnancy. 90 women were given the 5c potency of the following remedies: Caulophyllum, Arnica, Cimicifuga, Pulsatilla, and Gelsemium. They were given doses of this combination remedy twice daily during the ninth month. This double blind, placebo controlled study showed that women given the homeopathic medicines experienced a 40% shorter labor than those given a placebo. Also, the women given the placebo had four times as many complications of labor as those given the homeopathic medicines. One of the limitations of research on combination remedies is that the results do not reveal whether the effective treatment came from one specific medicine or from the unique combination of remedies. A study of 22 healthy women in their first pregnancies tested Caulophyllum, one of the medicines used in the study cited above, which was administered in the 7c potency during the active phase of labor (one dose per hour repeated for a maximum of 4 hours). The time of labor for those women given the homeopathic medicine was 38% shorter than for women given a placebo. This trial was not double blind; however, the researchers recently completed a double blind trial and confirmed their earlier results. A popular homeopathic external application marketed as TraumeelTM has been studied for its efficacy in the treatment of sprained ankles. This combination of 14 remedies in 2x to 6x potencies was given to subjects with sprained ankles. After 10 days, 24 of the 33 patients who were given the homeopathic medicine were pain free, while 13 of 36 patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. (Showing that 30% more were helped by the homeopathic remedy). This same medicine was also used in the treatment of traumatic hemarthrosis (joint swelling) and was shown to significantly reduce healing time as compared to a placebo. Objective measurements of joint swelling and movement and evaluation of the synovial fluid at injury were assessed. A study of 61 patients with varicose veins was performed double blind and placebo controlled. Three doses of a popular German combination of eight homeopathic medicines were given daily for 24 days. Measures were venous filling time, leg volume, and subjective symptoms. The study found that venous filling time improved in those given the homeopathic medicines by 44%, while it deteriorated in the placebo group by 18%. Other measures also had significant differences. A study of 212 men and women between 50-75 years of age who were diagnosed with mild cardiac insufficiency (the heart is not pumping the blood efficiently) were given either conventional medical treatment (ACE inhibitors and/or diuretics) or were given a unique homeopathic formulation called Cralonin, consisting of Crataegus mother tincture (hawthorn berry), Spigelia anthelmia D2 (wormbush or pinkroot), and Kalium carbonicum D3 (potassium carbonate). The subjects in this experiment who were given this homeopathic formula were given it three times a day for 8 weeks. The subjects given conventional medical treatment were given a dosage schedule at the physician’s discretion. The study found that both treatment regiments improved scores on most variables studied. The global assessments of treatment found that 28.2% of the homeopathic patients judged their results as “very good” and 58.2% as “good,” compared with only 15.7% and 52.0% of the conventionally treated (P=0.002). The study found both treatments to be well tolerated, but 82.7% of the patients who were given the homeopathic formula evaluated the tolerability of the remedy as “very good,” while only 46.1% of patients undergoing conventional medical treatment assessed that similar level of tolerability (P<0.0001). Also, patients using the homeopathic medicine demonstrated a higher degree of compliance in taking their medicine (57.3% were judged by practitioners as “very good,” while only 37.3% of patients using conventional treatments were judged to have a similar level of compliance (P=0.007). A recent preliminary study has found that a homeopathic medicine, Ruta graveolens, can be effective in treating plantar fasciitis (a painful inflammation on the sole of the foot). A study of 14 patients with plantar fasciitis was conducted in which the subjects were given either Ruta graveolens 30C (2 tablets three times a day for 14 days) or a placebo. The results showed a significant improvement (P<0.05) in patients given the homeopathic medicine, when compared with those patients given a placebo, as early as the 4th day of treatment and lasted throughout the 14 days of the trial. A study in Japan of 17 patients with intractable atopic dermatitis (also known as severe eczema) was conducted using individually chosen homeopathic medicines. All of these patients had previously been treated with conventional medicines for many years and also had received several psychological therapies and/or traditional Chinese medicines. Of these 17 patients, 13 had severe symptoms, 4 had moderate symptoms, and 4 had suffered since childhood. After between 6 and 31 months of homeopathic treatment, all patients have experienced at least 50% overall improvement, 15 of the 17 patients experienced 50% improvement in itchiness, and 10 of 13 patients experienced improvement in sleep. One patient experienced a complete recovery, seven patients improved about 80%, and nine patients improved by 50%. Earaches have become so common today in American children that they are the number one reason that parents take their child to a physician. One of the reasons for this recurring problem is that antibiotics may reduce the infection, but they tend to increase the chances for return of the ear problem. Homeopathic medicines are wonderfully effective in treating this common ailment. Although recurrent or severe earaches may require the care of a professional homeopath, there are several homeopathic remedies that primary care providers, care-takers and parents can use at home to heal acute earaches. A randomized double-blind, placebo controlled study prescribed individualized homeopathic medicines or placebo to 75 children. There were 19.9% more treatment failures in children given a placebo. Diary scores showed a significant decrease in symptoms at 24 and 64 hours after treatment in favor of those given a homeopathic medicine. What was particularly impressive about these results was that improvement from homeopathic medicines occurred rapidly and within the first day. Another study that also provided evidence of rapid resolution of ear infection in children given a homeopathic medicine was a trial of 230 children. These children were given an individually chosen homeopathic medicine. If pain reduction was not sufficient after just six hours, another individually chosen homeopathic medicine was prescribed. The researchers found that 39% of patients experienced sufficient pain reduction in the first 6 hours and another 33% after 12 hours. This improvement was more than 2 times faster than in children prescribed a placebo. Another study compared children with ear infections who were treated with homeopathic medicines and those who were treated with antibiotics. The researchers found that over 30% of children given an individually chosen homeopathic medicine experienced significant improvement in three hours, while only 11.5% of children prescribed an antibiotic experienced similar relief. The experimenters also found that the average duration of pain for children taking a homeopathic medicine was two days, compared to three days for those taking an antibiotic. Of particular importance was that 70.7% of children given the homeopathic medicine had no further recurrence of ear infection during the next year, but only 56.6% of children given an antibiotic had no further recurrence. One study compared individualized homeopathic treatment with standard conventional medical treatment in children with otitis media. (ear infection) This study was randomized but not double-blinded. The researchers found that more children given homeopathic treatment had a normal tympanogram after 12 months than children given conventional medical care. This research suggests that homeopathic medicines work fast, even faster than antibiotics, and that children taking homeopathic medicines are less likely to experience recurrent ear infections. There have been few formal studies on the homeopathic treatment of addiction, but one from India merits attention. This double-blind study was of 60 heroin addicts, of whom half were given individualized homeopathic medicines and half were given placebos. The number and intensity of the symptoms during withdrawal and detoxification were significantly less in patients given an individualized homeopathic medicine than those given a placebo. Further evidence of the benefits received from the homeopathic medicines was the fact that 35% of patients on the placebo left the study prior to its completion due to lack of therapeutic benefit, while only 5% of those taking the homeopathic medicine left the study. The empirical and research results using homeopathic medicines for treating addicts is so significant that several police stations in India have integrated homeopathic medicine into their drug abuse treatments. From 1987 to 1993, over 3,000 addicts have been detoxified with homeopathic medicines as their primary method of treatment. Clinical experience with homeopathic medicines provides additional evidence of the benefits from these natural medicines. Jack Cooper, M.D., a now deceased psychiatrist and homeopath who served as chief psychiatrist for 17 years at New York’s Westchester County Prison and Jail, commonly treated inmates who were going through withdrawal. Besides experiencing good results from using homeopathic medicines to treat withdrawal and detoxifi¬cation, he consistently found better results when the jailed patients did not know they were receiving treatment than when they did know. While such care without consent may not be ethical today, its practice several decades ago suggests that homeopathic medicines offer bene¬fits beyond the placebo effect and even beyond the patients’ awareness of being treated. Jonathan Davidson, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Duke University, conducted a small study of adults with major depression, social phobia, or panic disorder. He found that 60% of the patients responded favorably to homeopathic treatment. When one recognizes the considerable safety of homeopathic medicines, it is remarkable that the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists do not yet refer appropriate patients to homeopaths prior to prescribing powerful conventional drugs for them. The Menninger Clinic is world-renowned as one of the leading mental health centers for research and treatment. Most people don’t know it, but the founder of the Menninger Clinic, Charles Frederick Menninger, MD, was originally a homeopathic physician. He was even the head of his local homeopathic medicine society. He was so impressed with the results that he got from homeopathic medicines, he once said, “Homeopathy is wholly capable of satisfying the therapeutic demands of this age better than any other system or school of medicine. A small but significant study of people with brain cancer was conducted in association with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas (one of the most respected cancer research centers in the world), and it was published in the prestigious journal, International Journal of Oncology) Fifteen patient diagnosed with intracranial tumors were treated with Ruta 6X and Calcarea phosphorica (calcium phosphate) 3X. Of the 15 patients 6 of the 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors. These researchers also conducted several laboratory experiments in which one or both of these homeopathic medicines showed induction of survival-signaling pathways in normal lymphocytes as well as the induction of death-signaling pathways in brain cancer cells (this means that these medicines improved immune function and increased the body’s ability to kill cancer cells). The researchers also note that one of Ruta’s active ingredients is Rutin, which is known for having anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory activities and for reducing oxidative damage. The researchers also provide additional detail about the therapeutic benefits from calcium phosphate. Another double-blind, placebo-controlled study found that patients who required long-term intravenous therapy experienced significantly less hematomas (bruising) when given Arnica 5C, as compared to those given a placebo. The Zell trial found that an external homeopathic formula sped up the healing time of strains as compared to subjects given a placebo application. A unique study in Switzerland evaluated 115 children (92 boys, 23 girls) with an average age of 8.3 years at diagnosis of ADD/ADHD. The children were first treated with an individually chosen homeopathic medicine. Children who did not improve sufficiently on homeopathy were changed to Ritalin and evaluated after 3 months. After an average treatment time of 3.5 months, 75% of the children responded favorably to homeopathy, attaining an improvement rating of 73%. 22% of the children were treated with Ritalin and attained an improvement rating of 65%. The children were also evaluated according to the Conners Global Index (CGI), a recognized scale that measures the degree of hyperactivity and attention deficit symptoms. The children who responded to the homeopathic medicine experienced a 55% amelioration of the CGI, while the children who responded to Ritalin experienced a 48% lowering of the CGI. Three children didn’t respond to homeopathy or Ritalin, and one child left the study before completion. The researchers concluded that homeopathic treatment was comparable in its benefits to Ritalin. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in Cuba on patients with bronchial asthma. In this study 63 patients (34 children and 28 adults) participated, 39 of whom were given individualized homeopathic treatment and 24 were given a placebo. In the treated group, 97.4% improved and 2.6% worsened. 87.2% reduced their use of conventional medication. In the placebo group, 12.5% improved, 16.7% stayed the same, and 70.8% worsened. None of the subjects given a placebo reduced their conventional medication. In Summary This review of research is not meant to be complete. Despite the resistance to change in general and to homeopathy specifically, it is getting increasingly difficult for physicians and scientists to doubt the benefits that homeopathic medicines offer. Italian hematologist Paolo Bellavite and Italian homeopath Andrea Signorini’s book Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science is presently the most comprehensive resource of controlled studies on homeopathy. The authors conclude, “The sum of the clinical observations and experimental findings is beginning to prove so extensive and intrinsically consistent that it is no longer possible to dodge the issue by acting as if this body of evidence simply did not exist.” They go on to say, “To reject everything en bloc, as many are tempted to do, means throwing out the observations along with the interpretations, an operation which may be the line of least resistance, but which is not scientific because unexplained observations have always been the main hive of ideas for research.” Science is supposed to be objective, though both physicists and psychologists teach us that objectivity is impossible. Science’s long term antagonism to homeopathy is slowly breaking down, but not without significant reaction, fear, anxiety, and sometimes downright attack against homeopaths. To ignore the body of experimental data that presently exists on homeopathic medicines, and to deny the body of clinical experience of homeopaths and homeopathic patients, one would have to be virtually blind. One can only assume that this blindness is a temporary affliction, one that will soon be cured. Change is difficult, and significant change is even more difficult. Even though science grows from new knowledge, it tends to be resistant to perspectives and knowledge that do not fit contemporary paradigms and scientific theories. The information presented in this chapter and in this book in general is not meant to overthrow science, but instead, to enlarge its perspective so that it more broadly and accurately describes, and accepts, many presently unexplainable phenomena of nature. Although homeopathic medicine is little known in the U.S., it is very popular throughout the world, especially in Europe. Approximately 40% of French physicians and 20% of German physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines. Over 40% of British physicians refer patients to homeopaths, and almost 50% of Dutch physicians consider these natural medicines to be effective. A recent survey of primary care physicians who are members of the American Medical Association revealed that an astonishing 49% of them expressed interest in training in homeopathy (British Homeopathic Journal, July, 1997). This survey was conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland. These same researchers also surveyed Maryland family practice doctors and discovered that 69% expressed interest in homeopathic training (Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 1995, 8, 361 6). Both of these studies show an impressively high degree of interest in homeopathy. Medical history books must now be rewritten. Instead of describing homeopathy as an invalid therapy, it must now be written that homeopathy has been unfortunately misunderstood, attacked, and suppressed since its inception. While it is too early to determine how much of a role homeopathy will have in the future of health care, physicians and scientists must now make room for it. Homeopathy now has a clinically proven rightful place in health care. The above information was excerpted from an e-book, Homeopathic Family Medicine, by Dana Ullman MPH: it can be found on his website: www.homeopathic.com
Sign up to hear from us.