Philip Ball's article about homeopathy and the "memory of water" was interesting in what was written as well as what was left out of his discussion of the topic.
I found it curious that Philip Ball chose not to make reference to or description of some of the articles in this journal in which specific experimentation was conducted. The spectroscopic analysis research by Rao, Roy, Bell, and Hoover, as the physiochemical experiments by Elia, Napoli, and Germano are quite worthy of discussion, especially since their repeated experiments observed anomalous results.
Of further interest was the provocative article by Anick and Ives on the "silica hypothesis." Because silicate fragments fall off the walls of the glass tubes in the making of homeopathic medicines, these particles may change the structure of the water in different ways depending upon the substance in which the manufacturer is making a medicine. This evidence disproves the long and firmly held assumption that there is nothing in homeopathic medicines except water.
Finally, there was surprisingly no reference to the guest editor of this special issue, Martin Chaplin, a professor of the Department of Applied Science at London South Bank University, whose website on water structure references 1,200+ primarily peer-review articles. Chaplin is an objective observer of water structure and homeopathy, and his summary of the research is that homeopathic solutions are clearly not the same thing as plain water.
Scientists who now say that homeopathic medicines are just plain water are not keeping up on the scientific evidence or are simply showing their own anti-homeopathy biases.
Finally, Ball's reference to the making of homeopathic medicines as some type of "ritual" suggests that his own biases have entered his reporting. Does he refer to a chemist's stirring of a solution as a "ritual?"

I’m not sure why Dana Ullman thinks I make no reference to experiments, because I clearly do. I could obviously not discuss the results of every single experimental paper. But my general criticisms apply to the experiments she mentions too: they are curious, but bear no obvious relation to the question of why homeopathic medicines might work. Moreover, it seems always in the nature of these papers that a proper critique has to be lengthy. For example, Elia et al. completely misrepresent the Grotthuss effect and thereby end up claiming that there are long-lived clusters in the liquid with total disregard to what Teixeira points out about the molecular-scale properties of water. Their discussion of dissipative structures does not seem to make much sense either: the whole point of dissipative structures is that they need to be sustained by a throughput of energy: you don’t just make them with a quick shake and then expect them to sustain themselves.

If you’re interested, you’ll find a more extensive discussion of the issue on my blog (www.philipball.blogspot.com). There I do mention Martin Chaplin and his comments, and Martin has replied there to my criticisms. I’m not sure why Dana Ullman thinks his name should have been invoked here, however. More to the point, I discuss there the article by Anick and Ives on silicates. Ullman says “these particles may change the structure of the water in different ways depending upon the substance in which the manufacturer is making a medicine. This evidence disproves the long and firmly held assumption that there is nothing in homeopathic medicines except water.” Actually, Anick and Ives show nothing of the sort. They merely lay out a speculative chain of reasoning, for which there is no corroborative evidence and which demands a near-miraculous succession of events posited on the basis of nothing more than wishful thinking. To accept the idea as plausible reveals a determination to vindicate homeopathy at the expense of any critical thinking.

When chemists stir solutions, they know what effect this is having. When homeopaths give their vials a shake, they do so because others have done before them and because that is what one is ‘supposed’ to do. They might argue that the remedies don’t work otherwise, but they have no idea why that should be so. This, in my book, counts as a ritual.

Dear Mr,Dana Ullmann, MPH

I make a clear and kind remarkable observation as below:

Despite be discussing unproved yet water memory theory developed by respectable and late Dr.Prof.Jacques benveniste, MD, who I met in France at early 90´s.when I attended Doctorship in Europe..

I request you & all scientific community be concerned and pay attention to the biological background very necessary to comprove finally the mechanism of absorption of quantum energy of high dilted homeopatic remedies by human´s cell mithocondria; which it is the cell element responsable by bioleteronical changes & so on krebs cycle and etc.. into the human cell..

When finally time come after comproval of this rational and straight to the point scientific valide theory;so that the whole world homeopathic medical community it will get a final goal to proof definitely this remarkable standards regarding prescription of high diluted homeopathic drugs.

However, without this real& remarkable biological experiment be developed in vitro at first "in vitro", under lab.controlled tests and later its practical model be approved scientificaly
And that one may be replicable as also reviewed all over the world by scientific community....

NOTHING could be acceptable in reality by all of them, as Homeopathy be a real and remarkable medical therapeutics created by the geniality of Dr.Hahnemann,MD, early 19th.century...

It is time to start serious proofing of this biological background on the human´s cell regarding this remarkable question

Congratulations to both sides regarding this smart discussion on water memory as did seriously by both of you.

Regards,
Prof.Paulo de Lacerda,MD,Ph.D
Brazil

I think that using "30X" to confound 1:30 with 10E-30 is a simple trick for consumers, nothing more. But I hope "water memory" receives more serious scientific investigation. If you can make simple Falaco solitons with a frisbee in a swimming pool that last up to fifteen minutes, what could be accomplished with optimized solutions and techniques on a microscopic scale? Imagine the practical applications affecting turbulence.

Double-blind present homeopathic practioners with liter samples of variously treated waters and controls. Run that Barnstead and shake your booty! Or not. Have said practioners sort the results by type.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Being given 20 picograms/kg water 2-propionylpyrroline is something different - most everybody can smell it.

The main problem with research into homeopathy is that opponents of homeopathy consider the very endeavour pointless. As such, and because there has never been agreement as to what would constitute evidence for homeopathy, they are in theory open to evidence in favour of homeopathy, but in practice dismiss any allegedly positive result because it fails to provide decisive, one-step evidence for homeopathy.

But in doing so they undercut the incremental (rather than a-la-carte) nature of scientific research, whereby there might by many false starts and partial, tentative successes prior to a breakthrough.

Homeopathic research has objectively advanced in its methods over the past 20 years, and on no rational grounds can it be dismissed as pointless or irrational.

The scientific community has to decide whether it will at the very least allow such research to progress (if not support it outright) or else openly declare a war on open scientific enquiry.

Dear Editor,

In connection with the article "Here lies one whose name was writ in water..." written by Philip Ball, August 2007; I would like to point out the following:
As one who has devoted his life to the teaching and practicing of homeopathy, I read with great interest that comment on homeopathy and the memory of water.
In 1989, I had the honor of participating in an international assembly of some of the leading conventional scientists, organized by Temple University of Philadelphia and taking place in Bermuda. Dr. Benveniste, one of the participants, presented his research on homeopathy. At that time I strongly objected to his findings, on the grounds that they contradicted the basic principles of homeopathy. According to these principles, a highly diluted and "potentized" substance will have on the organism effects opposite to material undiluted doses. Therefore, highly diluted antibodies would be expected, in the Benveniste model, to stop and not to cause basophile degranulation. In homeopathy we prescribe poisonous substances like Arsenicum, Hydrocyanic acid etc. in high dilutions to patients who have symptoms resembling those produced by intoxication and such symptoms are cured. Were the Benveniste model true, highly diluted homeopathic doses of any poison would be lethal to patients in the same way as the material undiluted ones, but this is not the case. The symptoms of a bee sting will actually be reduced by a high potency of Apis Melifica, but could never produce the allergic condition of degranulation of basophils as Benveniste then claimed.
During the years, I repeatedly warned the homeopathic community against the misleading results of Benveniste's experiments and their negative consequences on the credibility of homeopathy itself. Dedicating time, work, and human resources to the "memory of water" is like perpetuating the original mistake made by Benveniste.
His idea of "memory of water" was nothing else but a firecracker that has been burnt out long ago.
The water after the homeopathic process of dilutions and succussion attains some biological properties so far unknown in their nature.

But to tear down a therapeutic system by examining and evaluating its theory instead of its therapeutic results is quite inappropriate. Until a few years ago, we did not know how aspirin works, yet it was the most frequently prescribed drug in conventional medicine.

The fact is that at this moment we do not have conclusive evidence of what is the nature of the homeopathic remedy. Homeopathy therefore must be accepted or rejected on its therapeutic effects alone.
To conclude, I would suggest to definitively dismiss the idea of the memory of water as a totally unscientific expression, to describe processes which are still completely unknown.


Yours sincerely,

George Vithoulkas
Alternative Nobel Prize, 1996
Director, International Academy of Classical Homeopathy, Greece
Prof. Kiev Medical Academy
Hon. Professor Moscow Medical Academy (Department Restorative Medicine)
Collaborating Professor Basque Medical University
Address: Alonissos 37005, Greece
Tel: 0030 24240 65142 / 65190
Fax: 0030 24240 65147
E-mail: george@vithoulkas.com
Website: www.vithoulkas.com

Unfortunately scientists due perhaps to there long period of study (much the sasme as doctors) think they know everything about a subject and they do to the point of what is known, but they dont accept that perhaps there is always more to understand. To the many people who have studied and administer homeopathy as well as the many who have recieved homeopathy, you cannot say it doesnt work or often how it works - but it does and not placebo. To those who do not agree with homeopathy, they fall into perhaps two camps: 1) supporters of pharmaceuticals or 2)arrogant minded individuals who cant accept what scientists have not yet proved due mostly to the scientific tools not yet been thought up and developed. Water is amazing and we have learnt so much about its properties only recently. Bearing that in mind, and considereing areas of research into other fields and the continued learning - shouldn't we keep an open mind? After all, the more we learn, the more we realise we dont (yet) know.

Philip Ball, my favorite editor at Nature, is surely hoist on his own petard, when he quotes John Keats’ epitaph, “Here lies one whose name was writ in water.” Vast millions do remember Keats’ name. Which presumably proves using his logic that water has profoundly significant (albeit not by mechanisms we might have guessed) to transmit memory!

Ball also recounts what is surely one of the lowest points in science-journalism. John Maddox, the editor of Nature, innocent of any training in the specific field—taking a second-tier hired magician in disguise—to check on the science and honor of a distinguished Freud chemist.

The trigger for Ball’s comments is the current issue of the journal, Homeopathy, which has a dozen articles. While I have never been involved in any way, intellectually, financially or personally—unlike Charles Darwin—with homeopathy, our water structure group contributed one of the papers (1) based on our rather extensive work (2) on the radically different Materials Science view of the “structure” of water, and its peripheral relation to homeopathy.

In the course of this recent work I have observed manifestations of a new disease confined to scientists—“homeophobia”. The word seems to terrify most—even if they have never read a single paper on the subject. Interestingly enough, Ball cites mostly the single paper critical paper from this issue, with not one word on either our paper, with the first two major papers referenced therein, or to Martin Chaplin’s introductory paper. Chaplin is clearly the most prominent figure in his field.

Herein Ball joins far too may scientists in “a much more dangerous, and ludicrous, practice condemned by our greatest scholars from Aristotle to Whitehead, of requiring an “explanation” or “theory” before accepting and dealing with solid, repeatable facts and observations which remain the only basis of real science.

1. R. Roy et al. “The Structure of Liquid Water; Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance to Homeopathy,” Materials Research Innovations, Vol 9, Is 4, 2005, 577–608.

2. R. Roy et al. “Ultradilute Ag-Aquasols with extraordinary bactericidal properties: the role of the system Ag-O-H2O,” Materials Research Innovations, Vol 11, No 1, 2007, pg. 3-18.

Rustum Roy
Prof. Materials Research, Arizona State and Penn State University
102 Materials Research Laboratory
University Park, PA 16802
rroy@psu.edu; 814-865-3421

Memory of water appears to be an attempt to explain why homeopathy works (and work it surely does). I am a homeopath, with a degree in physics and an MBA. The number of fantastic results I have had with homeopathy as have other homeopaths is definite anecdotal evidence to its efficacy. My view is that there is some physical / chemical law that we do not yet know and I am sure we will stumble on it in the near future. In the meantime, let us not pooh-pooh a system that really does work for the sick, especially those forsaken by allopathy.

Great advancements in science do not explain every phenomenon in nature. There are many areas in science where there is a leap of faith, which is borne out by experiments or results.
I agree with Prof. Vithoulkas that homeopathy should be judged by the therapeutic results alone.

I had to write in and express my concerns over the discrediting of homeopathy. i think that it is a dangerous and ignorant thing for anyone to do when they do not have all the facts, or better still have never experienced the therapeutic effects of homeopathy. I have been using homeopathy for the past 10 years as a homemaker and mother of four children. Because of what I and my family have benefitted from homeopathy, I decided to become a Homeopathic Doctor and i am going into my third year of studies with The Toronto School Of Homeopathic Medicine. I am proud to say that i am looking forward to helping many people and know that in my heart that homeopathy is here to stay and cannot and will not be squeezed out as it once was when it became a threat to the Medical Community. Homeopathy is a gentle mode of healing and one that is used and recognized all over the world. If someone has their doubt that homeopathy doesn't work then how can they explain what happens when a baby or an animal has a homeopathic remedy and has a complete cure? If this is supposed to just be water then how can one explain that? These are questions that need to be answered. Why doesnt someone talk to some of the Homeopaths from India about how remedies work in cases of Cholera and have saved thousands of lives. I agree with what Dr. Vithoulkas said in his comment about taking a look homeopathy's curative effects. These are things that need to be looked at and this is where scientists need to go to get some answers.

Yours sincerely
A Homeopath in the making.
Stephanie Marwood

I am not a homeopath but I am a scientist, a doctor and a researcher. I have some interest in homeopathy research mainly because just a mention of this word 'homeopathy' causes many sane and calm scientists, doctors and other reasonable people to go bollocks. Why is it that just the mere mention of this word causes hysteria, panic and accusations of 'trying to play with voodoo magic' within the scientific community? Only religious debate produces reactions of this type. I will definitely agree with a writer above calling it 'homeophobia'. I think Vithoulkas is right, intead of trying to play around the theory which may or may not be right, it is time to test the therapeutic effects of this system. Better clinical trials is the kind of research needed, not mud slinging and accusations - which unfortunately only increases hatred and enmity. I call for more funding for research into this system, dismissing it would be a shame as there has to be a reason for thousands of people around the world practicing it and millions claiming benefiting from it, even if it is placebo effect - which I doubt it is. I cannot imagine such strong feelings for a placebo effect! And also as a scientist one has to be objective and if one sees facts then those have to be reported even if there is no theory to explain it. That always comes later.

Homeopathy is not only ultradilutions. It is a whole diferent medical philosophy. The dynamization was just a consequence of Hahnemann's research on fundamental laws. So, to prove homeopathy is not enough to know how the imaterial remedies work, we need to consider the whole basis of classical homeopathy with a free mind.

Ruy Madsen
Brazil
ruymb@hotmail.com

Allow me to suggest a payment method for patients of Homeopathic medicine:

When you are billed for the homeopathic service (let's say the bill is $100), dilute that amount tenfold.

Repeat thrice.

Send the penny as payment, with an explanation that the penny still has the buying power of the original $100.

Allow me to suggest a payment method for patients of Homeopathic medicine:

When you are billed for the homeopathic service (let's say the bill is $100), dilute that

amount tenfold.

Repeat thrice.

Send the penny as payment, with an explanation that the penny still has the buying power of the original $100.

As an arts scholar I can tell you only my personal experiences with homeopathy. My son has been seriously ill with rheumatism at the age of 3 . At the hospital the physician told me, that he would have to take a very dangerous and heavy medicine until the age of 13. Therefore after several weeks my boy could`nt stand it any longer.
So I went to a then famous homeopath, who even has`nt a degree as a physician. He made an analysis of the eyes and gave me a little bottle with little white pearls and told me, if the illness would`nt have been vanished (!!!!) after 3 weeks, I should come again.
After months(!!!) of this dangerous illness , proved also by the analysis of the blood, I could`nt believe it! But I thougt it would be our last chance!
And believe me or not : after 3 weeks(!!!) my boy was OK and even his blood was totally free of rheumatic factors! His pediatrician was speechless and asked me: My God, what have you done?
Of course I don`t take homeopathy as the only possible way of healing but as a very very sophisticated and intelligent one.

I HAVE READ, WITH GREAT INTEREST AND OBJECTIVITY ,THE ONGOING DEBATE ON 'WATER MEMORY ' AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON HOMEOPATHY ,AS ALSO PROF GEORGE VITHAULKA'S RESPONSE. I AM NOT A MEDICAL DOCTOR. I AM BASICALLY AN INDIAN SCIENTIST WITH MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE RESEARCH ON ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY.HOWEVER, I HAVE MAINTAINED ,IN THE LAST 30 YEARS ,A DEEP AND ABIDING INTEREST IN MANY UNCONVENTIONAL THERAPIES PURELY AS A SCIENTIST AND ALSO AS MY HOBBY. I HAVE ALSO CLOSELY OBSERVED SEVERE LIMITATIONS AND ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE ALLOPATHY ,PARTICULARLY ,IN CHRONIC DISEASES.HOMEOPATHY, ITS THEORETICAL BASIS, AND ITS SUCCESS STORIES IN COUNTLESS NUMBER OF KNOWN CASES THAT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE ALLOPATHY TREATMENTS ARE ALSO MY AREAS OF DEEP INTEREST. BESIDES, I HAVE CARRIED OUT SEVERAL EXPERIMENTS ON PLANTS USING HOMEOPATHY AND HAVE FOUND ENCOURAGING RESULTS ON SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY.
IT WOULD BE INCORRECT AND UNSCIENTIFIC TO RIDICULE HOMEOPATHY ,JUST BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT INTO THE ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOL, WHICH ITSELF IS QUESTIONABLE. MOREOVER, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENA, WHICH DEFY CONVENTIONAL MEANS OF PROVING.THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTION MARKS IN THE ALLOPATHY ITSELF AS TO THE THEORETICAL CAUSES OF A NUMBER OF GRAVE DISEASES .THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PARA NORMAL PHENOMENA THAT GREAT SCIENTISTS HAVE EXPERIENCED AND RECORDED WHICH ARE BEYOND REALM OF ACCEPTED SCENTIFIC FRAMEWORK. HOMEOPATHY HAS SHOWN ASTOUNDING RESULTS IN A NUMBER OF CHRONIC DISEASES AND THESE HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED BY AUTHENTIC DATA OVER THA LAST ABOUT 150 YEARS.THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HIGHLY EMINENT PERSONALITIES IN INDIA WHO HAVE PUBLICLY ACKOWLEDGED BENEFICIAL THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS IN THEIR OWN CASES.
I SUGGEST THAT DR GERGE V CONVENE AN INTERNATIONAL MEET EXCLUSIVELY ON SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY OF HOMEOPATHY FROM THERETICAL AS WELL AS PRACTICAL , EXPERIENCED-BASED APPROACHES ,IN WHICH, SCIENTISTS OF HOMEOPATHY AS WELL AS ALLOPATHY AND OTHER EMINENT PERSONALITIES COULD BE INVITED FOR AN OBJECTIVE, THREADBARE DISCUSSIONS ON ALL ASPECTS.INDIA, WITH ITS RICH HISTORY OF HOMEOPATHY AND PROFOUND EXPERIENCE AND EMINENT PRACTIONERS OF HOMEOPATHY COULD BE A POSSIBLE VENUE.
WE MUST NOT FORGET AN IMPORTANT BUT LATENT DIMENSION IN THIS DEBATE, WHICH IS THERE IN OTHER ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES ALSO, THAT IS THE COMMERCIALLY VESTED INTERESTS, WHO WOULD NOT MISS A SINGLE OPPORTUNITY TO DOWNGRADE ALL LOW COST THERAPIES FOR THEIR VESTED INTEREST UNDER THE GUISE OF LACK OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF, EVEVIF SUCH PROOFS MAY NOT BE EXISTING FOR THEIR CHOSEN MODE OF THERAPY

For me, who drinks about 2 liters of water everyday, the so-far pseudoscientific hypothesis of the memory of water would be quite thrilling and terrifying: what kind of memories may that water still have? what effects on my body? Should I definetely change to beer, as I always presumed as more helpful and convenient?

Please for goodness sake do not tarnish the image of homeopathy. This medical system benefits many as it is economical as well as effective. Nature has earlier also published a lengthy critique about homeopathy. And many people who have really experienced success with homeopathic treatment have responded to that. What scientists do not realize is that people’s concern is whether a technology is effective or not, and not whether it is scientifically proven. If homeopathy is not scientifically sound, it does not mean that it is not effective and worthless; it only means that scientists have not been able to discover its mechanism of medicinal effect. We have on the other hand useless theories like evolutionary theory, which are not scientifically proved but continue to enjoy a place in science for centuries. Compared to that homeopathy is genuine medical system but has not been scientifically explained. Please understand that the fault is not with homeopathy but with we scientists who cannot find out its scientific basis. In most of the developing countries (and also in some of the developed countries), it is very popular because it is effective. We should stop the false propaganda against this very effective but scientifically mysterious medical system which particularly helps the poor and children. The skeptics will do better to take homeopathy treatment and prove to themselves its worthiness.

Ultra-dilute homeopathic medicines, and their manufacture, may engage natural functions more general than currently thought by homeopaths. With his pharmaceutical methods, Hahnemann may have unknowingly entered an area larger than that of only medical therapy. The non-medical agent described below appears to alter extra-cellular chemical compounds in the field.

Supporting the contention that an ultra-dilute potentized agent (dilution past the Avogadro Constant) can be active: For 8+ years, Washington Homeopathic Products, a US manufacturing homeopathic pharmacy, has made and sold an ultra-dilute odor abatement solution. It is formulated to quickly decrease concentration levels of some odors and/or to decrease the rate of odor production from biological sources. The solution is misted into air and/or onto materials. "Odor Off" demonstrates its chemical activity on indoor air-borne odors and on odor-producing materials (for example, cat urine in litter box).

Events of placebo responses of the targets or of spontaneous remissions of the "ailment-condition" being treated are implausible with this agent's directed use.

WHP has told me that customers using the product in varying situations report that this ultra-dilute, odor abatement agent is reliably efficacious. See http://www.homeopathyworks.com Search term: odor off.
James Silverthorne
james.thf@post.com
Stroudsburg PA USA

" If someone has their doubt that homeopathy doesn't work then how can they explain what happens when a baby or an animal has a homeopathic remedy and has a complete cure?"

It is very simple to explain this observation. It is a false inference, as shown by the abject failure of homeopathic trials in animals to show any therapeutic effect in adequately controlled tests.

The alleged effects of homeopathy are often claimed to be greater than a mere placebo because of the successes reported in animals and children. But, this ignores the glaringly obvious fact that the 'successful' response is not being reported by the patient itself but by a carer who brings a large set of biases to play. It is self-evidently easier to report improvement where you want to see improvement when you yourself are not suffering the illness.

Indeed the fact that homeopathy's apologists seem to think that its use in animals and children represents a trump card against sceptical argument demonstrates how utterly they misunderstand the need to control for bias before valid conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy of any therapy.

The apparent efficacy of homeopathy as a whole can be perfectly well-explained by the spontaneous remissions and fluctuations in the natural history of all diseases together with an unfortunate admixture of outright misrepresentation (or, at best, innocent confusion) of which I have seen much evidence in homeopathic case histories that have crossed my path.

There is simply no mystery to be explained.

In the issue of "Homeopathy" under consideration, Rao et al published an article purporting to concern, among other things, the UV-Vis spectroscopy of ethanol and ethanol-based homeopathic preparations. Their reference spectrum of "pure ethanol" is obviously highly contaminated, if it even is based on ethanol. The spectra of their homeopathic preparations appear to be spectra of ordinary, potable ethanol taken from different sources (i.e., production lots). We have sent a letter to the editor (Peter Fisher) describing these errors in more detail.

Homoeopathy is a true science which is surviving for more than 200 years even after many critics overs it.This shows that Homoeopathy is a Fact that can never be vanished. The drug dynamization of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann is one of his Master pieces. Still now the effects have been proved by many of the practitioners all around the world with miraculous cures.
Viewing Homoeopathy with a material thinking will not give a fruitful result for the observer. The modern science has to accept its inefficiency to explain the theory of Dynamization instead of making false conjuctures on the Devine System of medicine.
Thanking you.

Makes you wonder what the health effects of drinking water from the River Thames has on Londoners!

Dear friends,

Homeophobia is very appropriate in present scenario. Because the most intelligent mind being diappointed in conventional medicine trying to hide their disappointment by applying their intelligency on public making HOMEOPATHY as FRINGE MEDICINE. They are becoming more & more jealous on finding good therapeutic results applying HOMEOPATHY in so called incurable & resistant cases by modern medicine. It is not too far for Homeopathy to become the first choice of therapeutic by learned public.

With regards.

Dr. Prafulla. Ku. Nayak
Homeopathic Medical Officer,
G.H.D., Sundargarh Town,
PIN: 770001, Orissa, India

Among my patients and my colleagues are some scientists, of different disciplines, who have been greatly aided by homeopathy, as well as their family members.

Among homeopaths are some physicians, MD's who practice homeopathy after at least four years of intensive study and a few more of supervised practice aided by experiences classical homeopaths who are not MD's.

The denial of Homeopathy as a valid science is blindness to its impressive achievements.

Those who will live by the rules of classical Homeopathy will be able to survive.

A few close freinds of mine and Myself are over sixty, active as ever and more. We all take no conventional medications whatsoever since we are treated in classical homeopathy.

The pharmaceuticals are standing to loose a lot by Homeopathy, they better find some other avenues of investments then bombardment of the human organisms with devastating chemicals/

Among my patients and my colleagues are some scientists, of different disciplines, who have been greatly aided by homeopathy, as well as their family members.

Among homeopaths are some physicians, MD's who practice homeopathy after at least four years of intensive study and a few more of supervised practice aided by experiences classical homeopaths who are not MD's.

The denial of Homeopathy as a valid science is blindness to its impressive achievements, or a pointed battle for the gold of the corrupt pharmaceuticals who have been exploiting the ignorance of the people to promote low quality drugs. This by synthesis of the active elements of plants they search in primitive areas. These are robbed of any natural dilutions. They endanger the consumers with such synthetic chemicals.

Those who will live by the rules of classical Homeopathy and nature will be able to survive for generations to come with healthy offspring.

A few close freinds of mine and myself are over sixty, active as ever and more. We all take no conventional medications whatsoever for any health problem that arises now for over a decade, we are treated with classical homeopathy.

The pharmaceuticals are standing to loose a lot by Homeopathy, they better find some other avenues of investments then the profits of bombardment of the human organisms with devastating chemicals/

Posted by: henia simone