Yes, George Vithoulkas has written an excellent warning. Yes, homeopathy needs to be accurate about what it can and cannot do. However, I do not totally agree with the great teacher, George Vithoulkas. The letter is a response to a case published by a well known and respected homeopath. See that description of treatment of serious symptoms of COVID-19.
Most of us homeopaths need to focus on treating patients one at a time. If some great compiler of case symptoms goes further than that, of course, I cheer. But, as Vithoulkas implies, homeopathy works best one patient at a time. I know because I have seen it happen so many times.
I think that slow recovery and avoidance of severe symptoms expectation described by Paul Herscu in the case of influenza-like symptoms or the COVID-19 is a "good enough outcome." You will never be able to prove that the patient would not have had severe symptoms in the first place. But the symptoms of patients who recover cause severe suffering in many cases. The cases reported by Dr. Aditya Kasariyans and Dr. Rajan Sankaran are not cases that we should leave to nature to cure just because 97% of cases recover. I suspect that 97% is an official excuse for the lack of medical support typical in most countries.
Furthermore, we cannot foresee the Never-been-well-since case that may be developing from severe untreated cases. That is, similar to influenza NBWS cases, some patients never totally recover from severe viral infections. If homeopathic cases do not develop severe symptoms, even if recovery is slow, I still think working with people one at a time is worth the effort. If they develop severe symptoms despite our remedy, then we know that our treatment was ineffective. At that point, we should question our practice. Ineffective homeopathic treatment is not an expected outcome.
Furthermore, Vithoulkas is pushing for hospital provings. That is highly unlikely in a highly regulated hospital environment. I read about an Indian case where only half of the group members were given the curative remedy. That would be unethical in most countries. Giving only homeopathy would be seen in most countries as giving no treatment.
On the other hand, given the lack of medical support relative to the numbers of people affected by COVID-19, now may be a great chance to impliment the kind of study that Vithoulkas is recommending. That is, if patients cannot receive treatment in any case, homeopathic treatment is a good option. One patient at a time is also a good option.
George Vithoulkas’ Warning:
Dear Homeopaths, I would like to share with you the answer of Prof. George Vithoulkas regarding the paper "Homeopathy for Coronavirus Covid-19 Infection by Dr Aditya Kasariyans and Dr Rajan Sankaran",
Homeopathy is an individualised system of therapy, therefore there is no possibility that one remedy to cure all cases of a specific pathology.
In the paper that was circulated it appears that all cases are cured by one remedy!!!
What actually has happened ?
It is well known that this coronavirus is self recovering in 97% of the cases, so any remedy or false remedy or a placebo will have the same success as the one described for these cases.
It must be noted also that the correct homeopathic remedy will give an effect much different than the one described in these cases : this effect is instant recovery not a dragging recovery, like the one described in these cases.
If we want to be serious about this matter, we should ask to do an epidemiological research in one of the hospitals in Europe where patients could be assigned at random to two different groups, one for conventional treatment and to the other group will be added the homeopathic treatment, (treating each patient individually) and after treating a sample of at least 200 cases from each group to evaluate the results and to find out if the homeopathic group has a superior outcome in survival, general conditions etc. and to what degree.
All other outcries for the superiority of homeopathy in this influenza epidemic is irresponsible and will accuse us for been opportunists.
The genus epidemicus that is mentioned cannot be spotted in all epidemics, even in cases when is possible to discern it does not mean that all cases will be affected with this specific remedy.
The genus epidemicus may be ascertained only after a practitioner has treated a sufficient number of cases and has evaluated the effect of his treatment, meaning to observe which remedies had acted really well. If he finds that a remedy prevails in successful cases to a great degree, then can say that this may be the genus epidemicus. Such cases today, developing similar symptoms is impossible to be found with the level of health of our contemporary societies.
I can foresee that if everyone was trying to find the genus epidemics, possibly everyone would find a different one !
What may happen for example, after treating let us say 5 cases and finding in two of them he has given the same remedy. He will proclaimed it as the genus epidemicus. One can imagine the total chaos and confusion that will ensue in such a case where everyone will propose a remedy.
The conclusion we must arrive is that a process of serious evaluation is needed before one can give instructions to the public, it is ridiculous for anyone to announce that he has found the genus epidemicus by his imagination.
Further than these remarks about the paper if one analyses the information, will find different remedies indicated, but as we said in the beginning, any remedy you may prescribe will appear to have some kind of effect on the patient.
But when the correct remedy is prescribed in influenza like cases, the positive effect is felt instantly.
But a word of warning is necessary : we cannot claim under these circumstances that it was the effect of the homeopathic remedy that cured the patient until we have the proof in an experiment the I described above.
Prof. George Vithoulkas