Thursday, October 22, 2009

Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At

Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
by Dana Ullman, MPH, Expert in Homeopathic Medicine

Read more at:

The word "allergy" did not even exist a century ago, and yet, respiratory allergies today are the 5th leading chronic disease in the U.S. and are the 3rd most common chronic disease among children under 18 years old. [1] It has been estimated that one in seven Americans had a respiratory allergy in 1950, but one in four have one now.

To those of us who do not believe in coincidences, it is not surprising that my father was a physician who specialized in allergy.  Allergy is the medical specialty that commonly uses small doses of an allergen in order to desensitize a person to that allergen.  This concept of using small doses of what might cause a problem in order to help prevent or heal the person is an ancient observation of healers/physicians all over the world, and it is the basis for a type of natural medicine called homeopathy.

It is therefore not surprising that one of the three physicians who founded the American Acade­my of Allergy was a San Francisco homeopathic physician, Dr. Grant L. Selfridge. [2] Another small and forgotten footnote in medical history involves a homeopathic physician from Scotland, C.H. Blackley, who in 1871 was the first physician to identify pollen as the cause of hay fever. [3]

Although homeopaths have a history of being at the forefront of medical research and discovery, it is particularly appropriate and even predictable that they would lead the way in the field of allergy. Because the primary principle of modern allergy treatment derives from the homeopathic principle of "treating like with like," the spirit of homeopathy has lived on, despite the tendency of orthodox physicians to ignore it.

Research in Leading Medical Journals

Respiratory allergies represent the condition for which there is a relatively strong research base for efficacious treatment with homeopathic medicines. A group of researchers at the University of Glasgow published four studies, three of which were published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and the Lancet, two highly respected medical journals. Each study was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Each trial used an oral 30C homeopathic preparation. The first two trials involved patients with hay fever, [4] [5] where patients were either give a placebo or homeopathic doses of 12 common flowers to which people are allergic.

The third trial involved patients with asthma, where patients underwent conventional allergy testing to determine to what substance they were most allergic. [6] Half of the patients were given a placebo and half were given a homeopathic dose of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common allergen was "house dust mite" and thus, these patients were given House Dust Mite 30C).

The fourth study was the treatment of patients suffering with perennial allergic rhinitis (a broad technical term for respiratory allergies that are not seasonal). [7] Like the previous study, half of the patients were given a placebo, while the other half was given a homeopathic dose of whatever substance the person was most allergic. The patients given the homeopathic medicine experienced significant improvement in nasal inspiratory flow comparable with the improvement typically experienced by patients given steroidal drugs…without side effects!

When evaluating all four trials together (there were 253 patients in all of their clinical trials), there was a 28 percentimprovement in homeopathic subjects versus a 3 percent improvement in placebo subjects.

Following in the footsteps of the above research, a 4-week, double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic preparations with placebo was conducted in the Phoenix metropolitan area during the regional allergy season from February to May. [8] The treatment group was given a homeopathic preparation (6X) of common allergens in the Southwest region of the U.S. Participants included 40 men and women, 26-63 years of age, diagnosed with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms.

In addition to the above research, a group of German researchers conducted annual controlled clinical trials using a single homeopathic medicine (Galphima glauca) on over 1,000 hay fever subjects. The last six clinical trials were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. These studies consistently showed benefits from this homeopathic treatment as compared with those patients given a placebo. [9]

It should be acknowledged that not all research has confirmed success in the treatment of respiratory allergies using homeopathic medicines.  For instance, one study tested homeopathic doses of birch trees to treat people with birch tree allergies, but such treatment was not any more effective than a placebo. [10]

Specific Treatment Options

What this research suggests is that homeopathic medicines provide an often effective and extremely safe means of treatment for patients with respiratory allergies.  Further, due to the widely recognized safety of homeopathic medicines, it makes sense to consider safe methods before resorting to more risky treatments.  There are specific treatment options using homeopathic medicines that people can consider:

1) Follow the studies of the Glasgow researchers and use conventional allergy testing to determine to what you are allergic and then take the 30C dose of this substance  (these products are available through select homeopathic pharmacies).

2) Two of the Glasgow studies involved subjects with hay fever, and these studies used a combination homeopathic medicine that included flowers to which the patients were allergic. People might consider prescribing a homeopathic medicine that contains many of the common flowers to which the hay fever subject is sensitive (most health food stores have homeopathic combination remedies that include such ingredients).

3) People with hay fever could consider taking Galphimia glauca 3X, 4X, 4C, or 6C as long as hay fever symptoms persist, or use a homeopathic combination remedy in which this remedy is an ingredient.

4) People with allergies could consider prescribing an individualized single homeopathic medicine as recommended in various homeopathic acute care guidebooks. [11] Individualizing a homeopathic medicine to a specific person and his/her unique syndrome of symptoms is the preferred method of "classical homeopathy" and has a long-time history of significant success.

Generally, these treatment options provide safe and effective care for patients suffering from respiratory allergies, but it is uncertain how long-term the therapeutic benefits will last. It may be necessary to refer the patient to a professional homeopath who will prescribe a homeopathic constitutional medicine that is, a remedy that is highly individualized to the patient genetic makeup, personal health history, and totality of physical and psychological symptoms. Clinical experience commonly observes more long-term results.

Skeptics commonly assert that homeopathic medicines comprise of too small of a dose to have any effect, and yet, there have been 200+ clinical trials that have evaluated homeopathic treatment, most of which found positive results from homeopathic medicines. Although it is not presently known with certainty how homeopathic medicines work, conventional medicine has a long history of using treatments for which they didn't understand but that worked anyway.

Future blogs will discuss more clinical research, some modern theories about how and why homeopathic medicines work. I also plan to discuss why so many of the most respected cultural heroes since the early 19th century have used and/or advocated for homeopathy, including 11 U.S. Presidents, two British prime ministers, six popes, and many of the most respected physicians, scientists, literary greats, corporate leaders, heads of state, sports superstars, musical and artistic geniuses, women's rights leaders, and clergy of the past 200 years.


[1] Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America

[2] Cohen SG. The American Academy of Allergy: a historical review. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1979;64: 332-333.

[3] Reilly D, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopath­ic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet October 18, 1986; ii: 881-886.

[4] Reilly, DT, Taylor, MA, Potent placebo or potency? A proposed study model with initial findings using homoeopathically prepared pollens in hayfever, British Homoeopathic Journal 1985,74:65-75.

[5] Reilly D, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopath­ic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet October 18, 1986; ii: 881-886.

[6] Reilly, DT, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, et al, Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994,344:1601-1606.

[7] Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones H, McSharry C, Aitchison TC, Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series, BMJ August 19, 2000,321:471-476.

[8] Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters RF.  Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis using homeopathic preparation of common allergens in the southwest region of the US: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.  Ann Pharmacother. 2005 Apr;39(4):617-24.

[9] Wiesenauer M, Ludtke R, "A Meta-analysis of the Homeopathic Treatment of Pollinosis with Galphimia glauca," Forsch Komplementarmed., 3(1996):230-234.

[10] Aabel S. Prophylactic and acute treatment with the homeopathic medicine Betula 30C for birch pollen allergy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of consistency of VAS responses. Br Homeopath J 2001;90:73-78. 

[11] Cummings S, Ullman D, Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicine, New York: JP Tarcher/Putnam, 2004.


Wednesday, October 14, 2009

"Stop the Shot" Litigation Filed Today in DC Court on 10/9/09

Natural Solutions Foundation
The Voice of Global Health Freedom™

“STOP THE SHOT” Litigation Filed
Health Freedom Advocates and NY Health Care Workers Seek Protection from DC Federal Court in Legal Effort to Void FDA Swine Flu Vaccine Approval

Washington DC – October 9, 2009: Despite the FDA’s intention to begin delivery this week of the novel “Swine Flu” 2009-H1N1-A live virus nasal mist vaccine to 90,000 government-approved locations nationwide, six New Yorkers and several NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs) filed for an Emergency Injunction in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the distribution of what they believe are illegal, unnecessary and dangerous vaccines.

The case of Null, Laibow et al. v FDA et al. [Docket No. 1:09-cv-01924] challenges the legality of the September 15th licensing of four vaccines prior to any safety testing for what the government calls a “novel flu virus with pandemic potential.” The complaint alleges that the government failed to follow its own rules and applicable legislation in rushing the vaccine approvals in the absence of any of the requisite minimum scientifically sound and appropriate testing for both safety and effectiveness as required by law since 1964.

Link to Complaint:
Link to Brief:
Link to Action eAlert:
Link to “I’m Not a Pharma Serf” Action Item:

The New Yorkers are all health care workers who are therefore subject to that State’s new legal mandate (promulgated August 13, 2009) requiring that nearly all of the State’s half million health care workers receive all Federally recommended flu vaccines or lose their jobs. This requirement puts the health care workers in significant jeopardy since these newly approved vaccines have never been tested for either safety or efficacy and may carry major risks.

The lawsuit, announced at a demonstration by the health care workers last week at the State Capitol in Albany on September 29, 2009, is expected to be just one of the suits filed challenging various government “emergency” actions for a flu that has proven (during the just concluded Southern Hemisphere flu season) to be neither pandemic nor virulent despite dire predictions to the contrary and despite a Health Emergency declared by the CDC on April 25, 2009, 11 days after the first alleged death from Swine Flu on April 14, 2009 and a Level 6 Pandemic declaration by the World Health Organization followed on June 11, 2009 (which was only possible since W.H.O. downgraded the definition of a “Level 6 Pandemic”).

The Plaintiffs include health care professionals such as Dr. Gary Null, PhD, a well-known New York nutritionist, Rima E. Laibow, MD, a New York licensed physician who is Medical Director and a Trustee of the Natural Solutions Foundation, Dr. Tedd Koren DC, head of Foundation for Health Choice and four other health care workers covered by the mandate, including a Registered Nurse who has had prior adverse reactions to flu vaccines; a pregnant Nurse’s Aide, a health care student who has been told that she cannot see the patients whom she must see in order to finish her training, and a woman who works in the billing department of a hospital. All have been denied exemptions and told they will lose their positions under the new mandate if they are not vaccinated with all flu vaccines, including the new “Swine Flu” vaccine.

The Complaint alleges that the FDA erred in determining that safety testing was not needed because the 2009-H1N1-A vaccines are a mere “change of strain” not requiring safety testing. The Plaintiffs claim there is no significant scientific agreement that supports the government’s actions. The experts presented by the Plaintiffs include Sarah Schon MD, a Board Certified Immunologist and Paul G. King PhD, a noted analytical chemist with decades of experience in the pharmaceutical industry.

The Plaintiffs further allege that the Live Attenuated Influenza Virus (LAIV) nasal mist vaccine could trigger the very pandemic the government claims people should fear, calling the decision to allow a LAIV vaccine using a WHO and CDC declared “novel pandemic virus” an “arbitrary and capricious decision without any basis in the scientific record.”

Citing HHS Secretary Sebelius’s September 15th testimony before a Congressional committee when she announced the vaccine licensing, that even the FDA’s own scientists would not “sign-off” on the use of the most toxic vaccine ingredients (known as “oil in water adjuvants”) the Plaintiffs allege the government has a plan to nonetheless approve these substances, never before approved for drug use in the United States, under an “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA) permitted by the 2005 Project Bioshield Act. On July 13, 2009, according to a press release on the web site, the government purchased nearly a half billion dollar’s worth ($485 Million USD) of the deadly adjuvnt squalene, an oil in water adjuvant, blamed by many nongovernmental physicians as a “Gulf War Syndrome” causative agent in more than 25% of the soldiers who were subjected to an experimental anthrax vaccine, Vaccine A, containing squalene. Vaccine A was later authorized under an EUA propmpting a Court ruling that makes its use legal only in voluntary situations. The government’s stockpile is enough squalene to “stretch” the 167 million doses of “Swine Flu” vaccine the government has purchased to cover the entire American population since the purpose of an adjuvant is to increase immune response to the injected material. The FDA web site indicates that the adjuvanted vaccines will be provided under an EUA which will allow the agency to skirt “Good Manufacturing Practices” and any issue of whether squalene is too dangerous to be permitted.

Secretary Sebelius further testified before Congress that a single company will be contracted by the government to deliver the vaccines to 90,000 locations around the country. The FDA site further indicates that the squalene will be mixed with the approved vaccines at those sites before administering the shots, without regard to normal pharmaceutical manufacturing requirements. The Plaintiffs claim that this will result in dangerously adulterated vaccines that may cause much more injury than the infamous 1976 “Swine Flu” vaccine program that killed hundreds and maimed thousands before it was stopped just ten weeks after it began, with nearly fifty million Americans having received that deadly shot or the dangerous squalene-adjuvanted Vaccine A which caused so many cataclysmic illnesses and deaths in Gulf War I military personnel. These shots, too, were both unnecessary and untested.

In their submitted Complaint, Brief and Certifications the Plaintiffs remind the Court that as early as 1905, even before the Federal authorities had the legal power to license vaccines, the Supreme Court stated, in Jacobson v Massachusetts (197 U.S. 11),

“We are not to be understood as holding … that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual … ‘All laws,’ this court has said, ’should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence.’ …”

The lead attorney for the Plaintiffs, Leslie Fourton JD, of New York, is working with the respected Washington regulatory law firm of Swankin and Turner and a team of legal experts from around the country, including Larry Becraft JD, Alabama, Alan G. Phillips JD, North Carolina, and Ralph Fucetola JD, New Jersey.

Counsel Fourton stated,

“Without taking into account serious objections raised by many scientists, FDA approved four “Swine Flu” 2009-H1N1-A Vaccines without enough concern about any definitive safety testing and the quality thereof. The Secretary of Health and Human Services testified before Congress, announcing the approvals and a program to widely distribute the Vaccines which were purchased by the federal government. The administrative record appears to be defective in that the record as posted on the Agency web site does not include, for all the approved Vaccines, a drug package insert or label with an accurate list of ingredients. We don’t know what was approved or how dangerous it may be. The Plaintiffs seek immediate relief.”

The nongovernmental organizations who are supporting the New Yorkers threatened by the “Swine Flu” vaccine approvals, by joining in the legal action, are the National Solutions Foundation (, whose President is Maj Gen Bert Stubblebine (US Army Ret.), Dr. Tedd Koren’s Foundation for Health Choice ( and the Gary Null organization (

For further information contact:

Ralph Fucetola JD – 973-300-4594
Natural Solutions Foundation Counsel and Trustee

Friday, October 2, 2009

Remedy of the Month: Gelsemium sempervirens (Gels.) - Yellow Jasmine

Remedy of the Month Gelsemium sempervirens (Gels.) - Yellow Jasmine

Gelsemium is used to treat acute influenza (flu) or sore throats, with weakness, limp limbs, chills, fever, headaches with double vision, and heavy, drooping eyelids. There may be a lack of thirst, even during fever. In addition, the remedy can be given for hay fever if accompanied by these symptoms.


Gelsemium has many predominant keynotes that a trained homeopath looks for when prescribing this remedy.
Many of the predominant ones are shown below and in capital letters:

, of not being able to cope with daily life, responsibilities, work. Timidity.
ANTICIPATION. Desire to be quiet, to be left alone. Avoid people and distress of life.
STAGE FRIGHT, fear of exams, to take on new tasks. Feel almost paralyzed.
Mental weakness. Dullness. Forgetful.

Flushes of heat alternating with chills, aggravated on back.
Acute coryza, agg. left side, with dull headache.
Face Flushed. Hot, dusky red. Dull, heavy expression.
Pain from throat to ear on swallowing.

Heavy feeling, especially lower limbs.
Sleeplessness from exhaustion, anticipation, excitement. Drowsiness. Sleepiness of students.

More About Gelsemium
Text below reprinted by permission from The People's Repertory by Dr. Luc De Schepper

Gelsemium is characterized by the "D's": drowsy, dopey, dizzy, dumb, disoriented and dull. You can see right away why it is such a classic flu remedy. The person feels all of the above "as if a truck drove over me." He has chills going up and down the spine, he feels so tired that he thinks he cannot even lift a finger to take something and he even has aching upon moving his eyes. Yet he can't fall asleep. Curiously enough, in spite of the fever, he has absolutely no thirst and a slow pulse! Symptoms are made worse by motion, light, noise and stuffy rooms. There is trembling although the person is listless and has low stamina. The flu is accompanied by a headache. Gelsemium was the main remedy for the 1996-97 flu epidemic!

Besides being good for flu, Gelsemium is a great remedy for "hearing bad news" : the person reacts to hearing bad news (for example a doctor saying that your mammogram is positive and it might be cancer) as if she is paralyzed, she can't move, she just sits trembling.

It is also effective for fright with trembling after earthquakes and in case of anticipation anxiety (like Argentum nitricum). However, unlike with Argentum nitricum (where the anxiety can start weeks in advance), with Gelsemium the anticipation anxiety starts just before the event takes place; for example, you have a speaking engagement, everything seems to be all right until you have to start speaking, then you are overcome with fear and trembling.

Gelsemium is the #1 remedy for fear of the dentist, and I give it to my dog when he has to go to the vet. It is greatly indicated in headaches, especially ones precede by an aura of blurred vision and improved when the person passes great amounts of urine. In the past, acute cases of polio were cured by Gelsemium.