Homeopathy is an individualised system of therapy, therefore there is no possibility for 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 are irresponsible and will cause people to accuse us of being opportunists.
The genus epidemicus that is mentioned cannot be spotted in all epidemics. Even in cases when it is possible to discern it, that 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 we can say that this may be the genus epidemicus. With 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 epidemicus, 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 were he has given the same remedy, it will proclaimed 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 at 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.
If one analyses the information, he 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 as I described above.
The reasons that I proposed the research to take place in Europe and not in India are the following:
1. The patients could be found immediately, as in Europe the patients are coming to hospitals by hundreds every day.
2. In Europe the methods of detecting the virus are perfected and fast.
3. For such a serious experiment that would evaluate for the first time a different therapeutic approach, the result would have been accepted much more easily if the trial would have taken place within the best medical facilities and under the best supervision that the world has available at this present time.
4. In any case the patients of the homeopathic group would have an extra privilege of support from homeopathy without depriving them from the conventional therapeutics and all the modern equipment and facilities of conventional medicine.
Prof. George Vithoulkas