3 The recent withdrawal of several anti-rheumatoid drugs because of their side effects, though they had passed the stringent tests laid down by the Safety of Drugs Committee.

4 The failure to control malaria in spite of the most intense pharmacological and environmental research. This contrasts with the successful elimination of smallpox which is based on Jenner's cowpox vaccine (and similar diseases).

With regard to the three modem provings of Arnica, Bryonia and Pulsatilla, it would have been very rewarding if this had been successful. This surely reflects a very naive approach to provings. The author's protocol would never have been accepted by either Dr Templeton or Dr Raeside, and I doubt by Hahnemann.

Even the vagueness of the conclusions, using terms like "overall impression", "lack of convincing symptoms", "nearly all attributable to intercurrent upper respiratory tract infections", or "other incidental factors", "no relevant symptoms were produced except in Pulsatilla", is remarkable.

I suspect that a clearer picture might have emerged if the authors had not relied on self-assessment. Both Templeton and Raeside insisted on a weekly view of the provers with their diaries, and I understood that Hahnemann adopted a similar routine.

Further, is it really realistic to expect the body to respond in a neat fashion to short courses of three drugs given in material doses in such quick succession--I doubt it.

26 November 1984 The Royal London HomGeopathic Hospital, Great Ormond Street, London WC1

Yours sincerely, C . O . K E N N E D Y

Physician

REFERENCES 1 Hahnemann S. Organon 6th edition paragraph 64. 2 Amer J Hosp Pharm 1973; 30:584.

To the Editor, T H E B R I T I S H H O M O E O P A T H I C J O U R N A L

Dear Sir, Re: A. M. Scofield's Critical Review of Experimental Research in Homceopathy, Br Horn J 1984;73:161-80 and 211-26.

Dr Scofield and team must be thanked for their extensive summary of homeo- pathic research up to the present. Of course, their account is selective and not comprehensive as it omits even mentioning many reports in my original review of 1955 (e.g. the provocative studies of alterations in nerve transmission by G. Jaeger as early as 1880). Also, as their report includes many studies of sub-Avogadrian dilutions (rather than only dilutions beyond 1 x 10 z4 as did my original report), their thrust differs again from mine. Possibly this reflects the biochemical orientation of

Volume 74, Number 2, April 1985 125

Dr Scofield, just as the essentially pharmacologic orientation of most of the French homeopathic research reflects the natural bias of sponsoring organizations such as Boiron and Dolisas.

Apparently, Dr Scofield still has some doubts that ultra-molecular dynamizations have a scientific existence. Dr Boyd's monumental work should really prove that once and for all. Also, the equally monumental work of Boericke and Smith using NMR spectroscopic analysis--which Dr Scofield tends to dismiss--was repeated continually over a period of years at the University of Delaware by Professor William Mosher and his staff. Initially completely sceptical, Professor Mosher was a reluctant convert to the scientific existence of the ultra-molecular dynamization. Unfortunately, he died the same year that Dr Barnard died--their deaths crippling that phase of homeopathic research.

Although we physicians are necessarily clinicians and pharmacists, we have a responsibility to the larger world of science. Homeopathy is more than an extension of conventional pharmacology and biochemistry. The ultra-molecular dynamiza- tions are treasures we hold in trust for all our scientific colleagues. How can their true significance be better understood than by means of the unbelievable tools of modern physics? After a century of demonstrating the laboratory existence of the ultra-molecular dynamization, certainly the time has come to investigate how they act! Should Dr Scofield wish to shift his efforts from the library to the laboratory, we in the United States will be happy to cooperate as best we may.

Sincerely yours, JAMES S T E P H E N S O N , MD

19 December 1984 Director of Research 66 East 83rd St, The Council of Homeopathic New York City 10028. Research and Education.

To the Editor, THE B R I T I S H HOMQ~OPATHIC J O U R N A L

Dear Sir, The excellent critical survey of hom~eopathic research by Dr A. M. Scofield, MSC, PhD made most interesting reading. Many of the things he wrote badly needed t o be said. When talking to doctors about hom~eopathy I make no pretence that it is i significantly based. Homceopathy is an empirical system of treatment that has stood: the test of time for almost two centuries; against great opposition from their colleagues, doctors have continued~o use it and patients have continued to demand it. And the number of patients wanting homteopathic treatment is growing.

In his article Dr Scofield mentioned the phenomenon of hormesis. In 1960 Townsend and Luckey published an article in which they mentioned the phe- nomenon of HORMOLIGOSIS: the stimulation by a small amount of any agent which is harmful in large doses.! They surveyed 99 pharmacological substances which showed the phenomenon of hormoligosis. Among these are: quinine, salicyl- ates, morphine, caffeine, to mention only a few.

It would seem that hormoligosis is the modern term for Hahnemann's observa-

126 The British Homoeopathic Journal