Cancer treatment in Homeopathy
Two pioneers in the homeopathic treatment of cancer, Dr. Arthur H. Grimmer from the United States, and Dr. A.U. Ramakrishnan of India, have boldly shown the way for other homeopaths interested in applying homeopathy to this challenging and important area of human disease.
Some of the most interesting work in homeopathic cancer treatment was done by Grimmer, a student and colleague of James T. Kent, one of the American masters of homeopathic theory and practice.
Grimmer treated 225 cases of proven cancer, of various forms and in all stages of the disease. Most interestingly 175 patients are still living, many of them entirely well and free of all cancer symptoms. Only one of this group now living, shows indications of an early demise. All of these who failed to respond to the homeopathic treatment because of being treated surgically or with X-ray and radium in material doses.
In one journal article, entitled “Cadmium Cures of Cancer,” Grimmer reported nine cured cases of cancers, including several cases of liver, stomach and intestinal cancer, and one case of breast cancer using Cadmium metallicum and its salts. Most importantly another of Grimmer’s cases, diagnosed as sarcoma of the mouth and gums following tooth extraction, responded beautifully to high potencies of Symphytum, curing the patient within a year. In addition to the Cadmium salts and Symphytum. Grimmer also used homeopathic medicines such as Calcarea arsenicosum, Plumbum iodatum, Baryta iodatum, Hydrastis, Conium, and Sanguinaria.
“I would really like to bring back your attention the very fact that homeopathy within the hands of its master prescribers is that the greatest and most effective force the planet has today against the scourge of cancer, therefore homoeopathy, like the polar star to lead the way to the goal they are so arduously seeking.”
Dr. A.U. Ramakrishnan, from Chennai, in Southern India, visited the US in the late 90’s, bringing a revolutionary approach to cancer treatment that surprised, and even shocked, many classically trained homeopaths here. Both Ramakrishnan’s method and his results challenged current beliefs about whether homeopathy could cure cancer and what might be a possible protocol.
A quiet, dedicated, and earnest practitioner, Ramakrishnan laid out a relatively simple, practical method for curing cancer in his seminars and his book, A Homoeopathic Approach to Cancer, co-authored with Catherine R. Coulter. His method relies on the use of tissue- specific homeopathic medicines for certain types of cancer, alternating weekly with Carcinosin or Scirrhinum, homeopathic medicines (nosodes) derived from cancerous tissue. This alternation of homeopathic medicines, though common in India, was relatively unknown in Western homeopathic circles.
Ramakrishnan also raised eyebrows together with his unconventional method of dosing in cancer cases besides many homeopaths in the West commonly gave a single dose of high potency medicine, waiting weeks to months for a result before giving another dose. Whereas Dr. Ramakrishnan, in contrast, instructed the patient to dissolve the medicine in water, taking ten doses during an intensive two and a half hour period daily. He explains that the frequent dosing is essential for achieving positive results in cancer treatment.
Claims in Book:
In his book, Dr. Ramakrishnan claims to have treated over 4000 cases of cancer in his practice, with patients from around the world. He reported both his successes and his failures. Most importantly at the end of each section on types of tumor, he indicated the number of cases he had treated, the number who remained alive after five years, and the number and percentage of successful cases. Dr. Ramakrishnan reported 80% or better results in tumors of the breast, esophagus, oral cavity, and rectum. These results are extraordinary when compared to the statistics for conventional oncologic treatment.
Liver and lung tumors, which were often secondary sites of metastatic cancers, are much more difficult than primary tumors. He had a 70% success rate with brain tumors in the same time period.
As with most cancer treatment, Ramakrishnan reports greater success treating tumors sooner rather than later. He also recommends surgery, if the tumor is operable, before homeopathic treatment, in order to reduce the amount of tumor mass prior to homeopathic treatment. This protocol does not recommend using either radiation or chemotherapy at the same time as homeopathy. If the patient does choose these interventions, the homeopathy can still be administered in the intervals between treatments or once the conventional treatment had been discontinued. In late-stage cancer, chemotherapy is not recommended by Dr. Ramakrishnan because of its tendency to weaken the patient overall, diminishing the potential benefit from homeopathy.
Use of Nosodes
Dr. Ramakrishnan also indicates that the nosode Carcinosin can be useful as a preventive measure in patients with a significant family history of tumors. His protocol was to administer the medicine in 200C potency three to four times a year, or twice a year in patients under constitutional treatment. (Do not try this without the supervision of an experienced homeopathic physician in conjunction with conventional care.)
He believes Conium, Thuja and Arsenicum album are indicated in such an outsized number of cancer cases that he designated them as widespectrum cancer specifics. Examples of what he calls organ specific cancer medicines include Aloe socotrina for cancer of the colon and rectum, Aurum muriaticum natronatum for cancer of the uterus, ovaries and cervix, Plumbum iodatum for brain cancer, chelidonium majus for cancer of the liver and gall bladder, Sabal Serrulata for prostatic adenocarcinoma , and Lycopodium for carcinoma . (These are but a few examples of the many possible homeopathic medicines that may be used, and should in no way be administered without the guidance of an experienced pracititioner of Dr. Ramakrishnan’s method.)
As indicated above, these organ-specific or wide-spectrum cancer specifics are customarily alternated weekly with either Carcinosin (for most tumors) or Scirrhinum (for dense or indurated tumors). Individual cases, however, often require individualized methods of treatment, including the use of the constitutional prescription in place of the organ-specific medicine in the latter stages of a successful course of treatment.
Potentially life-threatening type of cancer is characterized by punched-out lesions in the bones. Our patient had two of these defining lesions on his right femur. We treated him according to the protocol with Hekla lava 200C (from a volcano in Iceland), the organ-specific medicine for bone cancer, alternated weekly with Carcinosin 200C. Within three months, the lesions and protein marker had completely disappeared, much to the surprise of the patient’s hematologic oncologist. Thankfully, there has been no recurrence in the last five years. These results were astonishing to us.
Cancer treatment by Dr. Ramakrishnan’s method is, of course, not the sole thanks to approach treating cancer homeopathically. Dr. Grimmer certainly treated cases during a much different manner, with single doses of high potencies within the manner of his teacher, Kent. Other homeopaths may have their own methods and successful cancer medicines demonstrated in their own practices. What is important is that homeopathy has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of cancer, at least as measured by a large number of individual case studies. Further research is certainly warranted, but the inspiration of Grimmer’s and Ramakrishnan’s work at least opens the door to the use of homeopathy as a useful part of an alternative and complementary cancer treatment protocol.
The Collected Works of Arthur H. Grimmer, MD, Ahmed Currim, PhD, MD, Editor, Hahnemann Institute for Homeopathic Documentation, 1996.
A Homeopathic Approach to Cancer, Dr. A.U. Ramakrishnan and Catherine R. Coulter, Quality Medical Publishing, 2001. Website: www.drramakrishnan.com.