From: prabhu To: SPIRDAILY@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:05 AM Subject: HOMEOPATHY
There are people all over the world [including me] who have come to have confidence in your work, quite a bit of which has been courageous and prophetic like the one on the infiltration of the New Age into convents...
In that and elsewhere, you have definitely included Reiki as New Age and occult.
The intensive study of Alternative Medicine from a Catholic perspective has been conducted for decades by researchers such as Erika Gibello who you have named in your recent article at http://www.spiritdaily.org/homeopathy.htm and the undersigned from whose site you quoted.
In our minds, no "confusion remains" over what the Vatican said. Instead, it is your article that induces confusion.
Some people do not see -- or do not want to see -- that the "life force" of Reiki [which you accept is occult] is the exact same as the chi of acupuncture and the vital energy of homoeopathy, and so on. In India here, it is called prana. Pranic Healing as my research has shown is highly occult.
The same "forces" or "energies" are employed in the practise of the martial arts.
I have produced preponderous evidence against the use of homeopathy at www.ephesians-511.net.
To me, it is also very clear why the Vatican Document cautions against twelve-step programs. I have discussed this in one of my articles.
At a time when liberals and New Agers are poisoning the Church from within, it is better to err on the side of caution.
Michael Prabhu, INDIA
Copy to Erika Gibello
From: Mrs E. Gibello To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 7:11 AM Subject: Easter Greetings
Happy Easter, He is Risen. Love to all, Erika
Your question about Homoeopathy.
Basically it is a fraud as no chemical is in the higher potencies.
It is accepted in modern pharmocology as a placebo. In Germany and Austria every packing of a homeopathic preparation must be marked: "Side effects are not known".
This is due to the fact that the production of homoeopathic medicines is not tested, as they do not permit it to be tested (they meaning the homoeopaths!) It rest on a Chinese idea about the universal power; in this specific case Hahnemann had the idea that by shaking the substance with water or alcohol to dilute it, the energy in that "substance" will be released and as it gets thinned more and more , more of the "universal energy" is released and less chemicals are in the medicine.
To the modern man it is obvious that the energies cannot be increased by shaking and diluting it.
The lower potencies might have a stimulating effect on the human immune system as the same "poison", which made the person sick is used in minute doses to awaken the antibodies in the body to fight the sickness. But alas the rules which count namely that no heavy metals must be used are not adhered to and in many of the homoeopathic medications you find in the lower potency heavy metals, which will not leave the body, ever.
The following extract on homoeopathy are from an occult work that includes a chapter on the remedies:
A Magickal Herball Compleat
By Pino Longchild, 2009
Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, also believed in Vitalism, the idea that within us all there is a spiritual force that reacts and adapts to external causes, where a negative state of mind can cause miasms or disease entities to enter the body…
It is this spiritual or vital body -- and not the physical body -- on which the infinitesimally diluted and "potentised" homoeopathic remedies act, as posited by Samuel Hahnemann. Both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are occult and New Age therapies. -Michael
…Queen Victoria's physician, Sir John Forbes, said the doses were "an outrage to human reason". Prof. Sir James Young Simpson said that homeopathic preparations would not "in the least degree affect a man or harm a fly", and American physician and author Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. wrote a work entitled Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions in 1842…
Bach Flower Remedies … is partly based on the principles of Vitalism and indeed was created by a homeopath, Edward Bach.
NEW AGE – AYURVEDA AND HOMOEOPATHY – GIVEN CREDIT IN CHARISINDIA MAGAZINE
From: prabhu To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; National Charismatic Office; Cc: email@example.com; professor Constantine; Fr. Rufus Pereira; erikagibello; Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: AYURVEDA and HOMOEOPATHY
Dear friends at CHARISINDIA and in the NST,
May I draw your attention to the mention of the use of "homeopathic and ayurvedic system of medicine" on page 15 of the September 2006 issue of CHARISINDIA.
First let me praise and thank God for the eventual healing by Jesus of Mrs. Fatima Marques, whose testimony contains that reference. Having done that, permit me to point out that ayurveda and homoeopathy are New Age alternative systems of medicine whose philosophies are incompatible with Biblical revelation.
Admittedly, the mention is part of a testimony. But, published in CHARISINDIA, there is always the possibility that it might be understood that there is no problem using such treatments.
At the February 2004 Asian Seminar on Healing and Deliverance in Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kerala, India, Fr. Larry Hogan, Chief Exorcist of the Archdiocese of Vienna, and Fr. Rufus Pereira made the position on homoeopathy clear. As for ayurveda, you may read my analysis of it at http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AYURVEDA.doc.
Yours sincerely, Michael Prabhu
The URLs to 10 files on homoeopathy at my web site were given; I received no response from the NST/NCO
A letter to the editor in defense of homoeopathy in the New Leader, a Catholic fortnightly from Chennai:
The New Leader, August 1-15, 2004
Forgive them, Father
This is in reference to the article on Homeopathy in the NL of June 10-15. One of the most absurd statements that I have ever read in my life of 70 years is the condemnation of Homeopathy as an occult practice, potentially dangerous.
If it is true that it comes from a Pontifical Council, it is truly pitiable.
We should not allow ourselves to be brainwashed by vested interests among allopathic practitioners. Everyone knows that the western allopathy has no cure for many health problems.
The proper response to anyone who condemns an alternative therapy that has helped so many can only be "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are saying".
L.M. Augustine, Bangalore
Homoeopathy – A Christian Medical Perspective
By Robina Coker
For Christian and non-Christian physicians alike, homeopathy is a controversial issue in the rapidly expanding field of alternative medicine. This article aims to define homeopathy, outline existing evidence for and against its effectiveness, and explain the reasons for the controversy amongst Christians.
I shall conclude by suggesting an appropriate Christian medical response.
What is homoeopathy?
Homoeopathy's founder was a German physician, Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). He based his treatments on simple remedies such as exercise, good nutrition and pure air, and two fundamental principles. The first was the Law of Similars. He believed that diseases could be cured by substances which in a healthy person would cause similar symptoms to those the medicine is prescribed to treat. The second was the Law of Infinitesimals. This held that the smaller the dose, the more efficacious the medicine. A method of mixing, dilution and shaking was called 'succussion' and the resulting preparation a 'potency'. The process of dilution and succussion is still claimed by some to release a therapeutic 'immaterial and vital' force*.
Two organisations currently represent homoeopathy in the UK.  One is the Faculty of Homoeopathy, with over 700 members, whose purpose is to teach homoeopathy to qualified medical practitioners, veterinary surgeons and dentists. Short introductory and six month full-time courses are offered, with teaching given by qualified doctors. Based at the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, it carries out research and publishes the British Homoeopathic Journal.
The other is the Society of Homoeopaths, with over 500 members. This trains homoeopathic practitioners, entry qualifications usually being a minimum of 5 GCSE and 2 'A' levels. The Society offers a three year full-time course equivalent to an undergraduate degree, or a four year part-time course. The curriculum includes tuition in medical sciences given by qualified doctors. The Society also aims to develop and maintain high standards of practice, promote society's awareness of homoeopathy and ensure continuing access to homoeopathy for the public. It also performs research and has its own journal. Both organisations promote homoeopathic remedies for the treatment of a wide variety of acute and chronic, physical, mental and emotional conditions.
The medical controversy
Homoeopathy is based on principles which conflict fundamentally with those currently known to underlie orthodox medicine. The basic mechanisms by which orthodox pharmaceutical agents exert their effects are generally known. Drugs may stimulate or antagonise specific receptors (e.g. B-adrenoceptor agonists and antagonists), modify cellular transport processes (e.g. probenecid, which blocks active reabsorption of uric acid), act as enzyme inhibitors (e.g. allopurinol which inhibits xanthine oxidase), replace missing endogenous components (e.g. hydroxocobalamin given for pernicious anaemia) or chelate toxins, such as pencillamine used to chelate copper in Wilson's disease.
The implication of all these mechanisms of action is that the pharmacological effects of drugs are related to their concentration at the site of action. Within certain limits, the higher the concentration, the greater is the resulting pharmacological effect. This 'dose-response relationship' is well established for drugs currently on the market.
Homoeopathic practice is based on altogether different principles. The active ingredient is heavily diluted in an inactive vehicle, usually water or alcohol, until no molecule of the original agent remains. According to the approach described above there is no reason to suppose that the active ingredient can be effective, because it is no longer physically present. However, homoeopathic practitioners believe that by subjecting this solution to a series of shakes, termed succussions, it becomes more potent. Such claims run contrary to the principles underlying twentieth century drug therapy, and the two treatment systems cannot be reconciled in the light of our present understanding.
There is controversy amongst doctors as to whether homoeopathy has proven effectiveness. This is evident from such titles as 'Is homoeopathy a placebo?' and 'Homoeopathy: medicine or magic?' There have been relatively few well-conducted trials evaluating it. Homoeopathic practitioners have sometimes been reluctant to pursue clinical trials on the grounds that their remedies are individual for each patient and therefore cannot be assessed in this way. Those which have been performed have yielded inconclusive results, as the following summary illustrates.
In 1986 a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a homoeopathic preparation of mixed grass pollens was performed in 144 patients with hay fever. Patients receiving homoeopathic treatment showed a significant reduction in symptoms (scored by patients and doctors) compared with the placebo-treated group, and improvement was associated with a halving of antihistamine requirements. The authors concluded that the evidence from this trial did not support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of homoeopathy is due to a placebo effect.
A French review of forty previously published randomised trials in which a homoeopathic remedy was compared to an orthodox medical treatment, to a placebo or to no treatment at all was published four years later. 
Conditions treated were wide-ranging. The authors considered most of the trials to be flawed by the use of subjective and/or multiple end-points. The median number of patients in each group was also relatively small at 28. The authors concluded that these trials did not provide sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of homoeopathic remedies.
In 1991 an analysis of 107 trials was published in this country.  The authors scored these studies according to predefined criteria of good methodology, and used as the main outcome measure the results of those trials with the best methodological quality. Of 105 with interpretable results, 81 trials were felt to indicate a beneficial effect of homoeopathy while 24 trials did not. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that most trials had been poorly designed and conducted, so that the evidence at present was insufficient to allow definite conclusions to be drawn. They recommended that further well-performed studies should be carried out.
A German paper in 1992 concluded that, while there may be some evidence suggesting that homoeopathy is effective, the methodological quality of trials was then too poor to allow definite conclusions to be drawn.  They recommended that further collaborative studies between physicians and homoeopathic practitioners should be planned. They also noted that trial design may have to take account of the individual prescription of remedies by homoeopaths.
In 1994, a study performed at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary  tested the reproducibility of evidence from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. Twenty-eight patients with atrophy and asthma were randomised to receive homoeopathic treatment or placebo in addition to their usual medication. The outcome measure was a daily visual analogue scale. Significant improvement with homoeopathy was noted within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to eight weeks. Similar trends were noted in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests, but the changes were only statistically significant for forced vital capacity. Meta-analysis of all three trials showed homoeopathy to be significantly more effective than placebo (p=0.0004). The authors concluded that there is 'evidence that homoeopathy does more than placebo'. In their view the principles stated as underlying homoeopathy are irreconcilable with those of modern pharmacology. They hypothesised that electromagnetic or nuclear magnetic resonance changes may occur at high dilution and in some way underlie a biological activity. The above suggestions are obviously purely speculative.
This study provoked six letters in the Lancet,  five of which were critical of its methods, outcome measures or conclusions. It was pointed out that neither daily peak flow readings (the most objective measurement of asthma severity), night-time symptoms nor requirement for other medications altered following homoeopathic treatment. Two correspondents highlighted the fact that patients and doctors alike guessed treatment allocation correctly more often than predicted from chance alone, which might influence the self-assessment score. The first author is allegedly a proponent of homoeopathy whose work has been supported by commercial homoeopathic organisations. The debate looks set to continue.
To date there is therefore little evidence that homoeopathy is effective. Proponents have claimed that the process of dilution and shaking release a therapeutic force. Thus, if homoeopathy were in future shown to be effective, it might be the methodology which was important.
The Christian controversy
Many Christians in the UK today are concerned that homoeopathy may involve the occult. Hahnemann was a freemason and a hypnotist, but was reportedly a well-educated and empathetic practitioner. However, the answer to the question of whether homoeopathy involves the occult is not immediately evident. It depends on where the 'immaterial and vital' force is thought to originate from. This will follow to some extent, but not necessarily wholly, from the therapist's world-view. There is certainly evidence from continental Europe of a link between homoeopathy and the occult, where it has been alleged that homoeopathic practitioners carry out research during séances and use occult practices such as the pendulum.  This is probably less common in Britain, but anecdotal reports are of concern. Christian homoeopathic practitioners should obviously not use these practices.
A Christian medical response
It seems that at present there is insufficient scientific evidence for homoeopathy for it to be a convincing form of treatment. Whether it will gain scientific credibility in the future remains to be seen. Doctors may wish to keep an open mind until the evidence is clearer, since history teaches us that orthodox medicine is not always superior to practical contemporary wisdom.
The solution to this debate lies in ensuring that further well-conducted clinical trials are performed, involving collaboration between homoeopathic practitioners and physicians. It could be argued that such physicians should be those with no interest in promoting the practice of homoeopathy, precluding undue claims of bias.
Christians are forbidden to have any association with witchcraft or the occult.  Given the isolated reports of an association with occult practices, Christians considering homoeopathic treatment would be well-advised to be careful and prayerful, and to make exhaustive enquiries before embarking on therapy.
Despite these reports, and the lack of good evidence for homoeopathy's effectiveness, some Christian doctors remain enthusiastic homoeopathic practitioners. Christian medical students or doctors considering receiving training in homoeopathy should firstly, as in all other areas of their lives, be absolutely clear that this is the Lord's will for them. Secondly, they should use the knowledge and skills acquired during their medical training to evaluate homoeopathy objectively.
The debate amongst Christians can become divisive. As in all areas where Christians disagree on non-doctrinal issues, we should remember that none of us has a monopoly of the truth. We are to be gracious  and humble.  It is important to pursue truth as far as possible, but we may have to wait for heaven before knowing it in full. If we then discover we were wrong, it may be easier to face Jesus Christ if we were courteous on earth.
1. Complementary Medicine: New Approaches to Good Practice. BMA 1993, pp98-101
2. Ernst E. Is homoeopathy a placebo? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1990 30:173-174
3. Homoeopathy: medicine or magic? (letter) BMJ 1991 302:289-290
4. Reilly DT et al. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hay fever as model. Lancet 1986 2:881-886
5. Hill C and Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homoeopathy. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 1990 38:139-147
6. Kleijnen J et al. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ 1991 302:316-323
7. Haidvogl M. Clinical medicine and homoeopathy. Padiatr Padol 1992 27:A95-100.
8. Reilly DT et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994 344:1601-1606
9. Lancet 1995 345:251-252.
10. Bopp H. Homoeopathy. English translation 1985, Great Joy, Belfast N Ireland
11. Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13; Galatians 5:19-20
12. Colossians 4:6
13. Ephesians 4:2-3
*InPlainSite.org Note: This process of dilution and succussion is repeated so often that, in certain cases, it can be compared to a pinch of salt in both North and South Atlantic Oceans with nothing of any chemical value left to heal your body. Hahnemann believed that the more it was diluted, the more potent or effective it became and when once asked if he could cure a serious epidemic by pouring a bottle of the correct poison into Lake Geneva and allowing the world to take of its substance. He replied "If I could shake Lake Geneva 60 times, then yes, I would do this." (Homeopathy Investigated, A.D. Bambridge RGN, p. 4)
In Hahnemann's own book of 1810, The Organon of the Art of Rational Healing, he states, "A change is affected in the given drug. It is changed and subtilised at last into spirit-like medicinal power which indeed, in itself, does not fall within our senses but for which the medicinally prepared globule... becomes the carrier.... and manifests the healing power of this invisible force in the sick body," (as quoted in: A-Z of Homeopathy, Dr. Trevor M. Cook, p. 597).
Swami Naranyani, an ex-Presbyterian who converted to Hinduism and taught Homeopathy stated "It is an energy, a vibration that is put into either pills or liquid."
Bro. Ignatius Mary answers queries on Homoeopathy in his Spiritual Warfare Q&A forum. He is reliable on most issues that are dealt with by him in his ministry, but he is completely wrong on homoeopathy
Homeopathic medicine, etc
November 7, 2004
I have noticed that some of the questions concerning natural therapies are always suspicious in nature. There have been a lot of advances in studies involving vitamins and minerals as well as some herbs. Since a lot of these things should be in our food and have been depleted, why are these things so looked down upon?
Or is it alternative therapies that are linked to healing touch, acupuncture and other things that we should stay away from?
I ask this because the drug companies and their products have side affects that a lot of times are worse than the conditions they are trying to treat. Unfortunately too the medical industry is just that in most situations today.
I do not deal with any strange occult practices for any reason, but I also study the positive effects of things that naturally improve the way our body functions. I look at it as gifts from God that should be in our food, but due to over cropping, insecticides and picking them to early these things are not there.
Am I doing something contrary to the Faith? If so it seems that going to the hospital or doctor would be as well. With an overwhelming idea of people being looked on as commodities and drug ads on the TV with side effects ranging from itching skin to death, shouldn't we be prudent about what we put in our bodies? –Lisa
No, you are not doing anything wrong, but I am troubled by the logic of the statement, "If so it seems that going to the hospital or doctor would be as well".
What is true for one is not necessarily true for another. Although the two approaches seem similar, that does not mean they are the same. Thus we cannot use this logic as a defense of homeopathy. In addition, if the Church taught that the hospital is okay, and homeopathic medicine is not, (which the Church does not do, but if it did) then regardless of our opinions we are obligated to stay away from homeopathic medicine no matter how much it promises.
That aside, what I have been talking about are systems of thought, cosmology, and philosophy. Oriental medicine that deals with things like energy flows in the body are fundamentally flawed in its cosmology as well as in biology.
Martial Arts and Yoga are activities that are based upon the flawed cosmology of the same "energy flows" (Ch'i) that are involved in acupuncture and the like. The movements of these activities are specifically designed to balance these non-existent energies and/or place one in a state of altered consciousness.
Homeopathic medicine, on the other hand, IF properly approached, is not a problem in-and-of-itself. Many of our medicines from drug companies are derived from herbs and other plants. Constant research on these resources is being done by the drug companies.
While homeopathic medicine in itself is not a problem, there are some cautions that must be considered:
1) As with any medical remedy or procedure, there is no such thing as a cure-all, a magic bullet, a substance that can cure everything. Some people in the homeopathic movement make claims about various herbs and substances that are scientifically unverifiable and are exaggerated to the four winds. Stay away from such things. Herbs, as with any substance, are effective for a limited number of issues; avoid exaggerated claims. Find out what has been proven to work for a specific condition or issue and limit oneself to those remedies.
2) While there has been much improvement over the last decade, there is still a problem with the quality-control of herbs and substances in homeopathy. One is never sure of the quality, potency, and dose of herbs on the market; there are no regulatory standards which with herbal companies must follow. If buying these products, be sure to do your research to find a company that offers the best quality-control, precise potency and dosage.
3) Herbs are not safe merely because they are "natural". There are contraindications and adverse reactions that can exist between herbs and between the herbs and other "regular" medications. It is possible to do great damage to oneself by homeopathic self-medication when one does not know about overdose limits, contraindications, adverse reactions, and other factors. It is possible to even die from such contraindications and adverse reactions.
It is critically important, therefore, that one know the potency of a herb, what dosage is safe, and what contraindications and adverse reactions that may exist.
The people who publish the PDR (Physicians’ Desk Reference) now have a PDR that deals specifically with herbs called the PDR for Herbal Medicines. Anyone practicing homeopathy NEEDS to buy this volume and learn how to use it. It is expensive, around $60, but it is a necessity.
Here is brochure description of the PDR for Herbal Medicines
Building on its best-selling predecessors, the new PDR for Herbal Medicines, Third Edition has left no resource unturned to bring together the latest scientific data in the most comprehensive herbal reference compiled.
The third edition goes far beyond the original source, adding a new section on Nutritional Supplements and new information aimed at greatly enhancing patient management by medical practitioners. All monographs have been updated to include recent scientific findings on efficacy, safety and potential interactions; clinical trials (including abstracts); case reports; and meta-analysis results. This new information has resulted in greatly expanded Effects, Contraindications, Precautions and Adverse Reactions, and Dosage sections of each monograph.
Indexed by common name
Asian, Indian and Homeopathic Herbs Index
Daily dosage information for unprocessed herbs and commercially available brand name products
Manufacturers' Index, including name, address, contact information and product list
Trade names of available products added to each monograph
Expanded Drug/Herb Interaction Guide
Therapeutic Category Index
Clinical Management of Interactions
To buy this volume, click here.
4) When consulting a homeopathic practitioner be VERY careful. Homeopathy is a major interest in the New Age. A LOT of practitioners may also be involved in New Ageism, occult or even witchcraft activities.
Following these guidelines, one should be able to navigate the homeopathy world successfully. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OMSM