What about the evidence that living systems can be influenced by substances in high dilution? It is known that animals can be extraordinarily sensitive. For example, salmon in the ocean can detect the 'scent' of their home water at dilutions of one part in 1,000,000. The human nose is capable of detecting the foul-smelling substance mercaptan at concentrations of only one part in 500,000,000,000 parts of air.

In 1940, Dr W E Boyd conducted an important experiment in Edinburgh. He showed that the chemical mercuric chloride, diluted to 60c, had a measurable effect on the rate at which an enzyme, diastase, affected starch. Similar experiments have been done using animal tissues in the laboratory, including frog's heart and rat's uterus. Yeasts and plants have also been tested. All the results demonstrate that substances 'in potency' (diluted to typical homeopathic concentrations) have effects on living tissues. Many other experiments are recorded, but most have not been repeated and have been criticized for their accuracy. However, recently there has been a worldwide standardization of homeopathy, which it is hoped will give future scientific experiments their due credence.

When a substance is diluted one to a 100, for 12 times (the 12c potency) or more, then it is likely that in any one sample, nothing of the original substance remains - it is pure solvent. Naturally, it is difficult to give a chemical explanation for how such infinitesimally small doses, or even no doses at all, produce their effect. One possibility is the 'placebo effect'. It has been shown that up to three-quarters of patients will feel better if given a 'treatment' which is actually only a placebo. It appears that, if they think it will cure them, then this belief is enough, and they do improve. But it seems unlikely that babies or animals would respond to this effect - and respond they do, to homeopathic remedies.

It has also been proposed that minute quantities of a remedy may act as a catalyst, a substance that speeds up the chemical workings of the body and so stimulates its innate healing powers. However, the extreme dilutions seem to preclude this.

It may be that physics, rather than chemistry, holds the answer. Experiments have been conducted using Raman lasers and nuclear magnetic resonators (NMR machines, used in medical scanning) to reveal the electromagnetic or vibratory properties of remedies in high dilutions. Evidence indicates that the structure of the solvent molecules may be electrochemically changed by succussion (the violent mixing used when diluting potencies). The solvent molecules may be imprinted and 'remember' the vibratory properties of the original tincture. When the remedy is given to the patient, this 'memory' is communicated to the living system and stimulates the effect that we see.

Today, in Britain, most homeopathic remedies are available in centesimal potencies, that is successively diluted by a factor of 100. It is also possible to obtain some of them in decimal potencies, successively diluted by a factor of 10, or as mother tinctures. 6c means that the remedy has been diluted six times by a factor of 100, and 30c that it has been diluted 30 times by a factor of 100. This means that 30c remedies are many, many times more potent in homeopathic terms, although they contain much less original substance.

The 'Laws of Cure' were partly devised by the physician who established homeopathy in America, Dr Constantine Hering. They state that cure takes place from the top of the body downwards, from the inside outwards and from the most important organs to the least important. Cure takes place in reverse order to the onset of symptoms. Therefore, for example, an ill person will start to feel better emotionally before the physical symptoms disappear and a long-standing complaint will take longer to disappear than a recent one.

Does homeopathy stand up to scrutiny by modern medical and scientific methods? Lack of convincing scientific proof is one of the great stumbling blocks to homeopathy's acceptance by the general medical community. Many reasons are quoted for this failure, such as lack of money, lack of time and lack of interest. (Although it should be said that many homeopaths are not interested in providing proof, because they know from their own experience that it works.)

There are three main areas which must be explored in an effort to overcome this lack of evidence. First, tests called clinical trials must prove that homeopathic remedies, as prescribed, actually benefit patients. Second, there must be proof that the highly diluted remedies have a measurable effect on living organisms, to show that they do contain some of the original substance. Third, the theoretical mechanism behind the potentization effect must be explored.

In conventional medicine, all new drugs must undergo clinical trials before being licensed for prescription by doctors. Until recently there have been few well-run clinical trials in homeopathy. In 1854, there was an outbreak of cholera in London. The mortality rates were compared for homeopathic and orthodox hospitals. The former had a mortality rate of 16.4 per cent, while the rate in the latter was 51.8 per cent. The Board of Health at the time attempted to suppress these damning figures. It was only after the matter was raised in Parliament that the figures were duly recorded.

During World War II there were experiments on the homeopathic treatment of mustard gas burns, for the Ministry of Defence. Controlled trials of mustard gas nosode 30c, and a remedy called Rhus tox 30c, showed a protective effect when these were given as a pre-ventative measure.

A more recent study was conducted in 1980 by Gibson and colleagues, in Glasgow. It compared homeopathic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with orthodox treatment by the drug aspirin. The results showed that the improvement rate was higher among the former group. However, a combination of aspirin and homeopathic remedies was even more effective.

Smaller trials have shown that Arnica 30c can significantly control pain and bleeding after dental treatment, and that Borax 30c and Candida nosode 30c are effective treatments for vaginal discharge.

In 1986 there was a double-blind study of the homeopathic treatment for hayfever, by Reilly. This showed significantly reduced symptoms in patients taking prescribed homeopathic remedies, compared with those taking a placebo. This trial was followed by a further two trials in hayfever and asthma, which were eventually combined into one trial (called met-analysis), which showed conclusively that homeopathy was better than placebo. These trials were so well conducted that Andrew Lockie challenged the orthodox establishment for a statement that either homeopathy did not work or that clinical trials were meaningless. So far no one has satisfactorily answered this challenge.

Another recent trial by Jennifer Jacobs in the USA showed that homeopathy was more effective than placebo in treating acute infantile diarrhoea, while a huge metanalysis conducted by conventional medical researchers grudgingly concluded that for some conditions homeopathy could now be considered a suitable other treatment although they still felt that further evidence was necessary.

A recent European Commission report on homeopathy gave a favourable response to a study of a large number of homeopathic trials.

The overall conclusion is that, where results are available, they show homeopathy to be of benefit. But many people demand better clinical trials, and more of them, before they will accept that homeopathy works.

Homeopathic remedies are not exclusive to homeopathy. For example, cis platinum is used in the treatment of many types of cancer, in both homeopathic and conventional medicine. Cis platinum, in common with many other drugs used in cancer treatment, is itself a 'carcinogen' (cancer-inducing drug). Similar experiments include quinine, digitalis and emetine. Orthodox medicine also employs dilutions of allergens (the allergy-causing substances) to treat the allergies themselves.

There are many similarities between the concepts of homeopathy and the new, expanding fields of immunology and allergy study. Indeed, the homeopathic approach to preventative medicine is reflected by the immunizations of orthodox medicine.

(from "A family guide to homeopathy" by Dr. Andrew Lockie)