Canadian Academy of Homeopathy

11/18/2025

Researchers in the U.K. researched outcomes from homeopathic prescribing in veterinary practice in a prospective, research-targeted, pilot study.

Practitioners submitted data regularly and punctually, and most data cells were completed. 767 individual patients were treated (547 dogs, 155 cats, 50 horses, 5 rabbits, 4 guinea-pigs, 2 birds, 2 goats, 1 cow, and 1 tortoise). Outcome from two or more homeopathic appointments per patient condition was obtained in 539 cases (79.8% showing improvement, 6.1% deterioration, 11.7% no change; outcome not recorded in 2.4% of follow-ups). Strongly positive outcomes (scores of +2 or +3) were achieved in: arthritis and epilepsy in dogs and, in smaller numbers, in atopic dermatitis, gingivitis and hyperthyroidism in cats.

Source: Mathie RT, Hansen L, Elliott MF et al. Outcomes from homeopathic prescribing in veterinary practice: a prospective, research-targeted, pilot study. Homeopathy 2007; 96 (1):27-34.

11/13/2025

H.C. Allen MD (pictured here) - sharing his experiences with Adolph LIppe MD...

“Here is one of the most important topics for all of us; the repetition of the remedy. I think that, as a rule, we make more mistakes in this than in any other part of the practical art of curing. We frequently fail by a too frequent repetition of the dose. To know when to repeat and how to repeat requires a master in the art.

Dr. Lippe once made a statement in my hearing that I thought the most audacious I had ever heard. He said that if he could visit a case of diphtheria the first time, before anybody had had a chance to spoil it, and make the first prescription, he would generally cure the case with one remedy and often with one dose. I went to Philadelphia and stayed there a month to see Dr. Lippe do it. At that time, I was giving two, three or four remedies at a time or in alternation. I saw Dr. Lippe clear up serious cases of illness over and over again in pneumonia, bronchitis, and so on, with a single prescription. Not always, but often.

The secret is first to find the remedy and then to know when to repeat and when to refrain from repeating. It is in this that skill is manifested; this is the work that marks the difference between the artist and the bungler.”

Source: H. C. Allen. Discussion. Transactions of the International Hahnemannian Association 1901: 43-44.

Important observation by Dr. Andre Saine:
"It is very important to note that for Lippe as well as for Hahnemann, one dose often was considered to be that a pellet was dissolved in half a glass of water and a teaspoonful was taken at certain intervals until the manifestation of a clear improvement. It was called the “broken dose.”

11/12/2025

Dr. Adolph Lippe on the repetition of the dose...

"1st. What are the infallible indications showing the favorable action of a dose administered?
2nd. What are the infallible indications that its action has been exhausted?

After the administration of a properly potentized homœopathic remedy, given singly and in a single dose, we see its effect in an acute disease very soon, often in a few minutes, and the more acute and the more severe the attack, the sooner may the development of the action that dose be expected. The close observer will perceive, very soon after the administration of the dose, some auspicious symptom showing him the action of the dose administered. Great distress and pains may suddenly, and, for a short time, be aggravated, or may cease and sleep set in, or the stomach be relieved of its contents when it had been overloaded and suffering was caused by it, or mental anguish give place to quietude, the pulse may change for the better, the thermometer may show an improvement. If the action of the dose administered has once begun, and if even the improvement is slow, but steady, then we know that the dose administered continues to develop its curative powers, or we may infer that the vis medicatrix naturæ once set to develop its health-restoring office, is still at work, and wants no other aid by medicines. In chronic diseases the action of the dose administered cannot develop such sudden effects; this would be contrary to the nature of a long-existing and deep-seated disease. If such a sudden exhibition of the drug-action follows its administration, if the improvement of the case is very rapid, then either the remedy acted as a palliative only, or was not rightly chosen; or, if very similar and carefully chosen, such sudden improvement generally forebodes no good, a repetition rarely ever produces a perceptible improvement, and other ever so well-chosen remedies will cause rapid but short-lasting improvement. It is especially in chronic disease aggravations frequently follow the administration of a truly homœopathic remedy, and if new symptoms appear of which the sick complained previously, then we may infer with almost positive certainty that the remedy is developing its curative powers. A very perceptible improvement, such as is acknowledged by the sick himself, very frequently does not take place in chronic diseases before the third day; this is to be accounted for, not by any pathological deductions, but by the fact that the sick-making powers of a single dose of a well-potentized drug, when taken by a healthy person, very frequently do not begin to show their effects until the third day after it has been taken; the very attentive observer will in such cases have perceived very soon after its administration to the healthy the same auspicious symptoms he has learned to observe on the sick. A repetition of the dose before the one previously administered has developed its effects, or before its effects are exhausted, causes an interruption of the internal, to our perceptions and understanding hidden, process in the interior of the organism, having for its object the restoring of the sick to health, therefore must it be avoided; and furthermore, such an untimely interference is invariably followed by results retarding a recovery, and may even at times so derange the actions of the organism, striving to combat the existing disturbances, that the recovery may not only be re****ed but be made very doubtful.

We know that the curative powers of a dose administered have been exhausted when the improvement comes to a perfect standstill, especially in acute diseases; a repetition of the same remedy may become necessary if the existing symptoms still indicate it. It was Hahnemann who advised us, in his Chronic Diseases, then to administer a different potency, but if new or other symptoms present themselves, then another remedy has to be chosen. In chronic diseases especially will it happen that the symptoms for which the remedy has been administered have been entirely removed, but that in the course of time, often after some weeks, the same previously observed symptoms reappear in a modified form; in this case the action of the formerly administered dose continues, and a repetition would materially interfere with the cure. This can be accounted for by the fact that persons who have suffered from a succession of symptoms from a single dose administered, found these symptoms disappear for a time, but that after days and sometimes after weeks, the same symptoms reappeared in a modified form, without a repetition of the dose of the drug first taken. If a repetition of the dose becomes necessary because the effects of the last dose administered have been fully exhausted, it must again be left to the individual judgment of the physician in what manner this repetition should be made. If a dose administered has acted for a long time, in acute diseases for days, in chronic diseases for weeks or months, we may reasonably judge that it would be best to again administer one more single dose; but if the action of the dose has lasted only a comparatively short time, has been rapidly exhausted, especially in acute diseases, and a repetition appears still advisable, then it would almost always be better to dissolve a single dose of the remedy now to be repeated in some few ounces of water, and continue its administration in broken doses till it becomes evident that the action of the dose in this manner administered has fully set in, and the symptoms for which it was given are yielding to it, becoming lessened in every respect; in chronic diseases, the individual judgment of the physician may lead him to administer the remedy in daily doses or in many doses a day for a length of time, till it becomes evident that the symptoms are materially relieved, and then the action of the repeated doses will scarcely ever be exhausted in a short time, but will probably last for weeks and months.

The greatest care should be taken never to repeat the dose, or administer another remedy till the effects of the dose last taken have been exhausted. This dose may be, and often is, a single dose, or it may be a dose dissolved in water and given at short intervals, or it may be a repetition of doses at short intervals, till some effect of this dose is apparent.

11/11/2025

One of many Nobel Prize winners to support the evidence for homeopathy...

Ervin Laszlo Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in 2004 and twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (2004 and 2005) is a Professor of “Systems Theory” and the author of the book “Science and the Akashic Field.” He has this to say about Homeopathy:

“Water has a remarkable capacity to register and conserve information, as indicated by, amongst other things, homeopathic remedies that remain effective even when not a single molecule of the original substance remains in a dilution.”

He joins Nobel Prize winners in Science—Emil Adolf von Behring, Brian Josephson, PhD, and Luc Montagnier, MD.

11/07/2025

From the Homeopathy Research Institute in the U.K...
"We are pleased to share the latest annual update of randomised controlled trials in homeopathy, adding 11 trials published in 2024. With 6 new double-blind RCTs (3 positive; 3 inconclusive) the overall balance of the DB-RCT evidence remains unchanged...

These results are essentially the same as those seen in allopathic RCTs .

The scientific evidence for homeopathy is based on the same types of clinical trials as those used to test conventional medical treatments. 329 clinical studies testing have been published in peer-…

11/06/2025

Important insights on dosing from Dr. Adolph Lippe...

"What happens when we administer the truly homœopathic remedy in an acute disease in one proper dose? The very observing healer will often detect a clearly defined demonstration that the remedy has taken effect in a very short time. The more acute and the more grave the attack, the sooner will such evidence become apparent. The groaning of the sick from pain very perceptibly diminishes; the restless, agonizing tossing about will cease, or the overloaded stomach is at once relieved—sometimes so soon (often under the appropriate and health-restoring effects of the homœopathically indicated Nux vomica, even in the most infinitesimal dose) that, under such circumstances, it is advisable always to provide for the occasion. Or the patient will, very soon after taking the remedy, fall into a good, refreshing sleep or into a perspiration. We are, under such circumstances, assured that we have selected and administered the proper remedy in a proper dose.

If, then, the improvement now necessarily following, does cease and the same symptoms remain, it is right and proper to decide that the effect of the dose administered has been exhausted and a new dose is called for. If new symptoms appear (not present when the first dose was administered), these new symptoms are either symptoms belonging to the remedy given or denote the development of the disease. That development may be twofold: it may be the progress of the disease or a critical discharge; or other symptoms (as a crisis) may show that the recuperative powers of the vis medicatrix naturæ are performing their duty. To decide correctly which of the three here apparent conditions exist requires a full knowledge of our Materia Medica and of pathology proper.

If the new symptoms belong to the remedy, we may safely wait much longer before we may expect that its curative action has been exhausted. If the new symptoms clearly show that the disease is progressing, then not only has that dose exhausted its effects, but is certainly no longer indicated; it must be dropped. If the new symptoms show that a crisis has set in, then the one dose administered has fairly roused the vital forces to resist the diseases, or, better, the disturbed conditions of the organism, and under such circumstances, it would be a culpable blunder to interfere in any manner with the now active power of the recuperative forces. If, for instance, in typhus a nose-bleed appears after the administration—say, of Rhus toxoxicodendron—it would be descending to the role of the symptom covered if this new symptom should be combated by a multiplicity of internal and local remedies. The true healer never interferes with nature’s best efforts to restore health; the true healer knows that secretions of any kind, if they are not abnormal, and thus threatening harm, should never be checked in any possible manner, neither by remedies internally administered nor by external means; he also knows that such proceedings are always followed by harm.

The more the healer knows of the nature and history of the disease before him, the more he appreciates the necessity of treating the symptoms of the sick, and not the disease by name, as such, the better will he be able to decide whether the remedy administered is acting curatively, although a change of symptoms has set in. These new symptoms do denote either an improvement in the condition (a crisis) or a progressive development of it. The close observer will very readily be able to determine what he must do under such circumstances—wait on the effect of the dose administered, or repeat the remedy, or choose another remedy. In periodical diseases, as intermittent fever, or periodically returning pains or spasms and secretions, the reflecting healer will never attempt to break down the paroxysm by repeating even the best selected remedy during such a paroxysm, as the only time to administer the curative remedy is during the time the sick is free from the periodically returning attack.

In chronic diseases, we have received additional precautionary advice from Hahnemann himself. After a remedy has for a considerable length of time, sometimes for weeks and months, very much improved the condition of the sick, it not infrequently happens that the symptoms become worse again. It is not wise at once to repeat the dose, as it very often happens that after a lapse of from five to even seven days the improvement ceased again begins and continues for a very long time, and it is always best to patiently wait at least five days after the improvement ceased before repeating the remedy, and then always in a different potency from the one first given.*

In some cases of sickness and under certain circumstances, a single dose will benefit the sick for a very long time; in other cases, it is necessary to repeat the remedy very frequently for a length of time. The fact is, we must “individualize.” If the vital forces are not impaired by previous ill health, palliative treatment, irregular habits, or by age, the single dose will seldom have to be repeated; but where the contrary is the case, then we may expect that it will be necessary to repeat the remedy much oftener. A priori, we can never determine when, if at all, the repetition of the dose will be necessary."

Important observations by Dr. Andre Saine:
1. "It is very important to note that for Lippe as well as for Hahnemann, one dose often was considered to be that a pellet was dissolved in half a glass of water and a teaspoonful was taken at certain intervals until the manifestation of a clear improvement. It was called the “broken dose.”

2. "There is no evidence that if the wrong remedy is prescribed and repeated in an acute case that harmful effects will follow. In chronic cases, the unruly repetition of the wrong and even the correct remedy can be detrimental to the patient’s recovery. The goal in both acute and chronic cases is the recovery of health in the most rapid, gentle, efficacious, and permanent manner. To reach this goal, the best rule is always to try to aim at finding the optimal repetition of the remedy, which is determined when the improvement to the previous dose has stopped. Therefore, as soon as the patient starts to plateau after having responded curatively to the remedy often becomes the best indication for the repetition of the dose as long as the symptoms still indicate the same remedy. To wait for a relapse to repeat is usually not the best strategy as the momentum of the recovery is being lost with each relapse."

3. "Contrary to Hahnemann’s experience, when patients with serious chronic disease experience a clear relapse, it is very unlikely that they will recover without another dose of the well-indicated remedy. However, if the relapse is mild, especially following a stress, after a period of rest. the patient can continue to recover without further repetition."

11/04/2025

The venerable H.C. Allen, MD, shares important insights from observing Dr. Adolph Lippe...

“Here is one of the most important topics for all of us; the repetition of the remedy. I think that, as a rule, we make more mistakes in this than in any other part of the practical art of curing. We frequently fail by a too frequent repetition of the dose. To know when to repeat and how to repeat requires a master in the art.

Dr. Lippe once made a statement in my hearing that I thought the most audacious I had ever heard. He said that if he could visit a case of diphtheria the first time, before anybody had had a chance to spoil it, and make the first prescription, he would generally cure the case with one remedy and often with one dose. I went to Philadelphia and stayed there a month to see Dr. Lippe do it. At that time I was giving two, three of four remedies at a time or in alternation. I saw Dr. Lippe clear up serious cases of illness over and over again in pneumonia, bronchitis and so on with a single prescription. Not always, but often. The secret is first to find the remedy and then to know when to repeat and when to refrain from repeating. It is in this, that skill is manifested; this is the work that marks the difference between the artist and the bungler.” H. C. Allen.

*** It is very important to note that for Lippe as well as for Hahnemann, one dose often was considered to be that a pellet was dissolved in half a glass of water, and a teaspoonful was taken at certain intervals until the manifestation of a clear improvement. It was called the “broken dose.”

11/04/2025

Valuable insights from Dr. Adolph Lippe...

Analogy, “the mother of so many errors,” is at times the only means by which we can cover symptoms, which by their nature are not even to be observed on the healthy prover; and to justify this occasional mode of ascertaining the curative remedy, I here state a certain cure by Hydrophobinum.

Ten years ago in the month of August, I was requested to see a gentleman over fifty years of age, who had suffered for one month from a severe dysentery and allopathic treatment.

After treating him for ten days, relieving him at times for a day or so, he stated a new symptom which he had not spoken of, as he thought it of no importance. He had several striking symptoms. The attacks were worse at night, the straining to evacuate caused a violent pain in the small of the back and in the re**um, compelling him afterwards to walk about, although weak; he could neither lie down nor stand up for any length of time. The desire to stool was immediately caused when he heard or saw the running of water. On the morning on which he stated this one characteristic symptom, he related that after one of those evacuations of bloody mucus and after the diminution of the pain he sat down at his open front chamber window, all at once the large street water plug was opened to cleanse the streets, and as soon as he noticed the water running down the gutter in front of his house, he was seized with violent pains and had to go at once to the water-closet. When, in the morning, a member of the family poured out some water from the pitcher into the wash-basin, this same pain and desire to stool returned; he then recollected that this had been of frequent occurrence before, but he had not believed that the seeing and hearing of the running of water could have had any effect on his disease, but was now at least willing to state the facts and ask the question. It further appeared that he had not been drinking any water for some time, he had occasionally taken some hot tea.

Carefully selected remedies had given only short relief, and this one very characteristic symptom had not been recorded in the Materia Medica, and would probably never be experienced by healthy provers. By analogy alone I gave the patient a few pellets of Hydrophobinum 200 (Jenichen) on the tongue. The improvement was rapid and permanent. The disease had now lasted almost six weeks and five days, after this single dose of Hydrophobinum was taken he was dismissed as cured.

10/31/2025

Homeopathy in History...
Dr. Alfred Pulford MD (an excellent homeopath) wrote in 1927 that after 42 years of practice, he has experienced “unvarying success in the treatment of eruptive fevers with purely homœopathic measures, and having triumphantly emerged from the race without a single death, the category including several hundred cases of measles, chicken-pox, scarlet fever, smallpox, etc., ranging from the mildest to the most malignant.”

Source: Alfred Pulford. Homœopathy in eruptive fevers. Transactions of the Ninth Quinquennial Homœopathic International Congress, Part II, London, 1927, 672-680.

10/30/2025

Homeopathy in History:

Throughout most of the nineteenth century, scarlet fever was the leading cause of death among infectious childhood maladies, with a mortality of up to 30 percent in usual epidemics.

Between 1842 and 1852, 270 children with scarlet fever were treated homeopathically at the Protestant Half-Orphan Asylum in New York City with one death, a mortality of 0.37 percent.

Dr. Adolph Lippe reported that, in 1849, he treated in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, “over 150 cases of malignant scarlet fever with the 200th and higher potencies exclusively—mortality—none. The allopathists (ordinary doctors) lost over 90 percent and the survivors were crippled for life.” It is said scarlet fever started in New York City in 1830 and kept spreading into the 1850’s through various counties of adjoining states.

Source: Report on the epidemic diseases which prevailed in 1851, in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. Transactions of the American Medical Association 1852; 5: 312.

10/29/2025

Another reason to use homeopathy...
In a review published in February, allergy experts from Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, San Diego called for the removal of diphenhydramine (think Benadryl) from over-the-counter and prescription markets in the United States, saying it’s outdated, dangerous, and eclipsed by safer alternatives.

Diphenhydramine, once a pioneering antihistamine, is now overshadowed by second-generation antihistamines with similar efficacy and fewer adverse effects. Current data suggest that the adverse side-effect profile of diphenhydramine is higher among children and older adults. This has led to countries...

10/27/2025

Observations by the venerable Dr. Henry Newell Guernsey of Philadelphia ...

"About the year 1850, it fell to my lot to work through an epidemic of childbed fever which raged with great severity in the extensive 23rd ward (Frankfort) of Philadelphia. My obstetric practice was very large, certainly as large as that of any of the twelve physicians in the ward. I was the only homœopathic physician practicing in the ward at that time. We worked side by side in the same streets and in the same blocks.

The allopathic physicians lost a large number of their patients, while I did not lose even one, during the entire epidemic; and I have so far, in the practice extending over thirty-five years, during which time I have attended fully 4,000 childbed cases, lost but one case of puerperal fever within the four weeks immediately succeeding confinement."

Source: H. N. Guernsey. Death-rates in childbed—a treatise. Medical Counselor 1879; 1: 88-92.