Current use and misuse of antibiotics
After their discovery in the 1940s, antibiotics considerably reduced
illness and death from infectious diseases that are caused
by bacteria. However, over the decades virtually all important
bacterial infections throughout the world are becoming resistant.
The two main reasons for this are firstly the increasing and
indiscriminate use of powerful, broad-spectrum antibiotics to
treat common infections and, secondly, the use of antibiotics in
inappropriate situations, such as treating viral infections such as
the common cold. Antibiotic resistance, which has been called
one of the world’s most pressing public health problems1, has
led to healthcare associated infections causing an estimated
37,000 deaths in the EU each year2. Antimicrobial resistance
constitutes a major infectious disease problem in the EU, and
show signs of becoming more prevalent in the future.
Until recently, research and development (R&D) efforts have
provided new drugs in time to treat bacteria that became resistant
to older antibiotics. This is no longer the case. The potential
crisis at hand is the result of a marked decrease in industry
R&D, and the increasing prevalence of resistant bacteria. The
pipeline of new antibiotics is drying up. Major pharmaceutical
companies are losing interest in the antibiotics market because
these drugs may not be as profitable as drugs that treat chronic
(long-term) conditions and lifestyle issues.
Combating germs vs reducing susceptibility
Modern Western medicine started to develop rapidly in the late
nineteenth century, especially with the discovery of bacteria as
an important cause of disease. Initially there were two opposing
views in the germ theory of disease. In Germany it was Robert
Koch’s ideas (micro-organisms were the ‘most dangerous enemies
of mankind’) versus those of Max von Pettenkofer (poor
hygiene as the main culprit). A similar well-known historical argument
occurred in France between Louis Pasteur (the microbe
as the prime factor) and Claude Bernard (the germ is little, the
terrain is all). Eventually Pasteur and Koch’s perspectives prevailed,
focused on combating disease by killing germs.
In reality, infection is always the result of two factors: exposure
to a pathogen and the person’s susceptibility. From this
perspective, bacteria and viruses are not the cause of disease
but at best a ‘co-factor’ to disease. That also means that taking
a conventional antibiotic may get rid of the pathogen, but
do nothing to strengthen a person’s immune system. In addition,
there is some evidence that antibiotics actually increase
the prevalence of allergy and asthma3,4 . Children who receive
antibiotics within their first six months of life were three times
more likely to develop allergies (to pets, ragweed, grass and
dust mites), and in case of broad-spectrum antibiotics even 8.9
times more likely to suffer from asthma.
Research demonstrates that homeopathy can
be effective
Antibiotics may provide symptomatic treatment, but people
given these medical treatments tend to experience recurrent
infections. By contrast, homeopathic doctors have the experience
that many people with infections can be effectively helped
by homeopathy and that it is an important way to strengthen
a person’s own immune system.
Scientific research on the use of homeopathy as an alternative
to antibiotics has been mainly conducted in respiratory
tract and middle ear infections. An international observational
study5 involving 500 consecutive patients with upper respiratory
tract complaints, lower respiratory tract complaints, or ear
complaints, found 83% of patients receiving homeopathic care
experienced improvement, while only 68% of those receiving
conventional medication experienced a similar degree of improvement.
People given a homeopathic medicine experienced
more rapid relief (67.3%) than patients given conventional
medicines (56.6%).
Several randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical
trials, involving between 100 and 200 individuals each, have
proven the effectiveness of homeopathy in medical conditions
that in conventional practice are treated with antibiotics, such
as sinusitis, both acute and chronic, and bronchitis6-9. Two placebo-
controlled, randomised, double-blind clinical trials of homeopathy10,11
involving 75 and 230 children found that homeopathic
treatment of acute middle ear infections was significantly
more effective than placebo.
Since sinusitis and bronchitis account for millions of missed
workdays each year and acute ear infection is the most common
infection for which antibacterial agents are prescribed for
children in the Western world, it is clear that homeopathy can
play a crucial role in this condition. The economic benefit was
also demonstrated by a study12 that compared two treatment
approaches (‘homeopathic strategy’ vs. ‘antibiotic strategy’)
used in routine medical practice by allopathic and homeopathic
GPs in the management of recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis
in 499 children. The GPs using homeopathy had significantly
better results in terms of clinical effectiveness, complications,
parents’ quality of life and time lost from work, for lower cost
to social security. GPs who integrated homeopathy in their
practice achieved better results for similar cost.
