Restoring Your Child’s Mental Health Through Homeopathic Quantum Healing
On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown, Connecticut home. He then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School where he fatally shot 20 children and six adult staff before committing suicide. It was the deadliest mass shooting at either a high school or grade school, and the third-deadliest mass shooting by a single person in US history. National news coverage focused primarily on gun control. There were proposals for making background-check systems universal, as well as new federal and state gun legislation banning sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.
By January, however, there was still no mention that use of psychiatric drugs had been involved in most major school shootings since 1988. Nor was it mentioned that Adam Lanza was first prescribed Lexapro, a psychotropic drug; later, he was prescribed Celexa, an antidepressant/anti-anxiety drug, and that he had recently stopped taking both drugs.
A list of teens committing school violence in the US from 1988-2006 reveals that most shooters were taking psychiatric prescriptions, (primarily antidepressants), according to the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights. Psychiatric antidepressants are well documented as triggering mania, psychosis, hostility, aggression, and suicidal thoughts. Ninety-nine drug regulatory agency warnings have been issued from ten countries and the European Union. Since August 2004, US labels for all antidepressants caution against these and other dangerous side effects. Many experts believe homicidal thoughts should be added to this list of labeled side effects.
David Healy is an internationally respected Professor of Psychiatry at Wales’ Cardiff University, researcher, and author of 150 peer-reviewed articles and 20 books. His 2006 study, “Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law,” notes the rapid behavioral deterioration triggered by antidepressant use. Using information from pharmacological data and nine criminal trials of violent assaults between 1990 and 2005, his study concludes SSRIs use is directly connected with violence. Healy’s book, Pharmageddon, is the riveting story of how pharmaceutical companies have hijacked healthcare in America, and how greed has trumped children’s safety and long-term health.
In 2011, other researchers revealed additional psychiatric drug concerns. Nancy Andreasen, editor in chief of the American Journal of Psychiatry from 1993 to 2005, began a long-term study of schizophrenic patients in 1991 that periodically measured brain volumes using magnetic resonance scans. Her results published in 2003 and 2005 noted brain volume reductions but attributed these losses to the disease rather than the treatment. Her 2011 study, published in the February Archives of General Psychiatry, however, drew vastly different conclusions that rocked the mental health community. Based on MRI scans of 211 schizophrenic patients monitored for 7 to 14 years, she concluded long-term use of antipsychotics and clozapine was definitely associated with brain shrinkage. Brain volume changes were caused by the treatment rather than the disease, said Andreasen, and severity was directly related to dose and length of use.
That same spring, a trio of books from highly credible authors questioned the efficacy of psychiatric drug use. Marcia Angell, MD, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, critiqued all three in the June 2011 New York Review of Books. Psychologist Irving Kirsch’s, The Emperor’s New Drugs, cites fifteen years of research and meta-analysis of numerous studies, revealing that psychiatric drugs are only slightly more effective than placebos. Psychiatrist Daniel Carlat’s Unhinged, The Trouble with Psychiatry unveils the collusion between psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, outlining how the profession should be reformed.
Award-winning author Robert Whitaker’s Anatomy of an Epidemic asks why the number of disabled mentally ill in the United States has tripled over the past two decades, despite the touted “improved” treatment of psychiatric medications. He details the harm drugs do, charting how the incidence of mental illness has risen in tandem with their use. Though they bring different perspectives, all three authors agree on the ineffectiveness and physical damage caused by psychoactive prescriptions. However, none propose what might replace psychiatric drug treatment — specific all-natural options that frequently restore mental health.
Connecticut Children’s Mental Health Task Force
Upset by the news media’s focus on guns, it finally hit me that most journalists did not have the training required to suspect psychiatric drug use might have led to the shootings. I sent a press release to over 900 health media outlets across the US, titled “Crucial Newtown Shooting Questions Not Yet Asked. What Do School Shooters Have in Common?” I also wrote an article listing the teens who committed school violence from 1988-2006, offering it free to the press. It included the year, name and age of the shooter, which psychiatric drug they had been taking (primarily antidepressants), how many people they had killed, in what state the shooting had occurred, and my source.
What did the assailants have in common? Many had begun taking or had abruptly stopped taking psychiatric drugs prior to the attacks; all except one were boys; and all used firearms except one, whose weapon was a knife. The press release also included the well-accepted knowledge about how psychiatric drugs often cause mania, psychosis, hostility, aggression, and suicidal thoughts, along with the drug regulatory agency warnings information.
No one requested the article. Yet by the following week, many US television news outlets opened their shows by calling for better treatment of psychiatric problems in children.
Encouraged, I sent a letter to the governor, offering my knowledge of alternative, drug-free treatments. Within a month I was invited to serve on a new Connecticut Children’s Mental Health Task Force, formed to recommend changes to legislators. Each Task Force member served for one year. I was the only one with any expertise in alternative medicine. For six months, I researched drug-free treatments that were scientifically shown to be effective, affordable, and easy for patients to use. In July 2014, I submitted a 30-page executive summary of ten options for Task Force recommendation to the legislature and potential consideration by the four Connecticut agencies treating children with mental problems. Topping the list was homeopathy.
Homeopathy’s New Nanoparticles
Homeopathy, a medical treatment created more than 200 years ago, is now used by over 500 million people on a regular basis. According to the World Health Organization, it is the largest complementary and alternative medicine utilized globally, no doubt due to its low cost, safety, and effectiveness. Consistent improvements to medical problems treated with homeopathic remedies have resulted in them being covered by national health systems in 42 countries. Yet among the 324 million residents of the United States, many of whom struggle to pay for medical insurance and prescriptions, only six million people use homeopathy, and those who do must pay for it out-of-pocket.
The story behind this is interesting, with the beginning told best in a remarkable and delightful book, Impossible Cure, The Promise of Homeopathy, by Amy Lansky, PhD. In it, Lansky interweaves details of how homeopathy cured her son’s autism with the history of Christian Frederich Samuel Hahnemann’s creation of a new medical system during the 1790s.
Fluent in nine languages, Hahnemann began studying medicine at age 20 in Germany and translated scientific texts for income. Nine years later he abandoned the medical practices of his time — induced vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, and using opiates or toxic doses of mercury — and adopted the teachings of Hippocrates, a Greek physician born in 460 BC, who is considered the father of modern medicine. The Hippocratic oath, “First do no harm,” is still taken by many graduating doctors.
Hippocrates maintained healing could be achieved in one of two ways: through the action of “opposites” (using a medicine that creates the opposite effect of the patient’s symptoms) or through the action of “similars” (using a medicine that creates in a healthy person the same symptoms experienced by the patient). Hahnemann had studied Hippocrates writings, as well as that of Paracelsus and other medieval alchemists, and knew they had achieved cures using the latter approach.
Hahnemann became well known and sought after for his translations of important medical texts. Yet he continued searching for a better method of healing that made sense scientifically and worked consistently. William Cullen, professor of medicine at the University of Edinburgh and author of Treatise on Materia Medica, hired Hahnemann to translate his book. In it, Cullen described using a Peruvian bark called cinchona or china. The source of quinine, it is still the primary treatment for malaria. However, Cullen’s explanation of how cinchona facilitated healing — that it had a tonic effect on the stomach — did not make sense to Hahnemann.
He decided to test cinchona, and systematically took overdoses of the bark for several days, recording his reactions. His notes summarize symptoms that are typical of an intermittent fever that lasted three hours every time he repeated the dose. Yet when he stopped taking the medicine, he returned to good health. This experience convinced Hahnemann that the similars principle could become the foundation of a new medical system.
Hahnemann’s Law of Similars states that a substance which causes symptoms similar to those of a disease state can cure a sick person of that disease. Unlike others who utilized the principle occasionally, he decided to explore it to the limits. He tested hundreds of substances for responses, calling them “provings.” It became his life’s work and the basis of homeopathy.
Homeopathy grew rapidly for the simple reason it was more successful than most 19th century medicines. The American Institute of Homeopathy, founded in 1844, was the first medical association of any kind in the United States.
By the turn of the century the pace of medical discoveries was rapid. There were 20 homeopathic medical schools in this country. Several new vaccines were created; the blood typing system was developed; the existence of vitamins and their importance to health were documented; and use of insulin for diabetes began. Yet infected wounds and the tuberculosis and pneumonia bacteria were still notorious killers.
In 1928, Alexander Fleming’s accidental discovery that mold on a discarded culture plate at London’s St. Mary’s Hospital had antibacterial action spurred tremendous excitement for modern medicine and launched the use of penicillin. Gradually, homeopathy use declined in the United States (although not in other countries).
This downward spiral was fed by decades of scientific controversy over the high dilution of homeopathic remedies. Utilizing the best biochemical assays of that era, not one molecule of the original bulk substance could be found in the remedies. Thus, many doctors maintained that health improvements must result from a patient’s belief in the remedy, known as the placebo response, not from the substance itself.
Undiluted remedies could bring about a cure, but they could also cause side effects. Hahnemann’s ideal form of cure was rapid, gentle, permanent, and reliable. Convinced by the reliability of the Law of Similars, Hahnemann worked to make remedies gentle, easier for patients. He increased the dilution ratio of an active ingredient with water and alcohol, but when too diluted, found there was no effect. He tried to ensure remedies were well mixed by succussing (vigorously shaking them). Those made by dilution and succussion seemed to have greater curative power. He called the process “potentization” to indicate these enhanced benefits. Even non-medicinal substances — such as onion, garlic, salt, cinnamon, asparagus, potato, and milk — became powerful remedies following potentization.
Hahnemann experimented with higher potencies as well. He suspected the effects of potentized remedies were unlikely to be biochemical at all but that they acted on a more energetic or insubstantial plane — what he called the life principle or vital force, what Greeks called dynamis, an inherent power.
In total, Hahnemann spent 40 years refining and improving the remedies, testing new dilutions, methods and repetitions for dosing, along with various avenues of administration. At the same time, he developed additional remedies to expand treatment options. Today there are an estimated 3,500 homeopathic remedies in use.
Enlightening 2009 Discovery
Two centuries after Hahnemann did his important work, Dr. Jayesh Bellare, the Institute Chair Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, who also has 20 years of worldwide experience in nanotechnology, proved Hahnemann right. The argument that homeopathic remedies were merely eliciting a placebo response was still used to disparage these inexpensive treatments. However, the argument had lost credibility because it was widely observed that these remedies worked. This was especially true in India, where 100 million people now depend solely on homeopathy for medical care, thanks to an entire system of homeopathic medical schools and licensed practitioners able to treat in hospital settings.
In 2009, Dr. Bellare observed that homeopathic remedies were manufactured in a process similar to modern techniques for producing nanoparticles. He and colleagues investigated six different commercially made homeopathic remedies using sophisticated electron microscopes and lab tests. Results revealed original source material was present in the remedies in nanoparticle forms at 6C, 30C, and 200C dilutions. Above 12C, no source material should have been present, yet it was — a stunning revelation that quickly broadened scientific interest in homeopathy.
The science of quantum physics explains how nanoparticles work, if you speak that language. I am not fluent, so allow me to share the concise explanation of two experts, for readers who are scientifically curious. Iris Bell, MD, PhD, is a board-certified psychiatrist who has served on the faculties of Harvard Medical School, University of California San Francisco, and University of Arizona. She has also been a researcher in complementary and alternative medicine for 30 years.
Bell speaks fluidly about homeopathy on YouTube videos, discussing extremely complex, biological functions in a concise manner. In her 2012 study, “A Model for Homeopathic Remedy Effects,” Dr. Bell says:
“Nanoparticles stimulate hormesis, a beneficial low-dose adaptive stress response. Homeopathic remedies prescribed in low doses spaced intermittently over time act as biological signals that stimulate the organism’s allostatic biological stress response network, evoking nonlinear modulatory, self-organizing change…Properly-timed remedy dosing elicits disease-primed compensatory reversal in the direction of maladaptive dynamics of the allostatic network, thus promoting resilience and recovery from disease.”
Professor Marcin Molski, HAB, PhD, MSc, at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland, has received awards from the Polish Chemical Society in 1992 and 1998, and is vice-head of the scientific committee of the Bioelectronics Foundation. Two of his fields of research are theoretical investigation of biological, physical, and chemical properties of substances used in cosmetics and medicine, and non-linear, non-local, coherent and quasi-quantum phenomena in biological systems.
The April 2010 article in Homeopathy Journal by Dr. Molski, “Quasi-quantum Phenomena: The Key to Understanding Homeopathy,” summarizes the action. Based on first- and second-order Gomperzian kinetics, it has been proved that the crystallization and its reciprocal process of dissolution are classified as quasi-quantum non-local coherent phenomena. This results in formulated ad hoc macroscopic versions of quantum non-locality, entanglement and coherence utilized in interpretation of the homeopathic remedies activity and effectiveness.
Despite the complicated nanoparticle science, homeopathy remains very simple to use. Treatment begins with the practitioner obtaining a detailed medical history and observing the client’s unique personality, likes and dislikes. Such details enable selection of the specific homeopathic remedy that will best resolve physical and behavioral problems. Classical homeopathy uses only one remedy at a time. Doses may be adjusted, or new remedies tried, until a positive response is evident. Improvements may occur immediately or take several months or more to achieve maximum benefits, depending on how complex the medical challenge.
What makes homeopathy most appealing to busy patients is that all they need do is take the remedy as directed once a day. Dietary and lifestyle changes are often recommended, but they are not required. If psychiatric medications are currently being taken by a patient, they are continued with the homeopathic remedy until medications are no longer needed.
In the United States, homeopathy cost and availability depend on where you are treated, with higher rates in major cities. For an initial 60- to 90-minute visit with an MD or ND homeopath, $100-300; other homeopaths will charge $50-250 for an initial session; 15- to 45-minute follow-up visits with MD/ND, $50-100; still other homeopaths will charge $30-80. Homeopathic remedy costs range from $7-25 per bottle; they cost less when purchased in kits.
Homeopathic remedies are regulated as drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. They are not currently evaluated for safety or effectiveness, thanks to their 200-years of use around the globe without serious side effects. Hundreds of clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of homeopathic remedies have been conducted over several decades. But until the discovery of nanoparticles in homeopathic remedies in 2009, there was obvious bias against homeopathy in much of the prior research.
A classic example of this bias is the first comprehensive review of homeopathy research, published in the British Medical Journal in 1991, which reviewed 105 clinical trials. The authors, three orthodox epidemiologists, came to this conclusion: “The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would readily accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible.” Fortunately, this argument is now history. Here are conclusions from selected studies, published between 1999 and 2011.
A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of 60 mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) patients was conducted at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. Homeopathic treatment was “the only significant or near-significant predictor of improvement” on the Difficulty with Situations Scale, the Symptom Rating Scale, and the Ten Most Common Symptoms of MTBI tests, indicating “clinically significant outcomes” from use of homeopathic treatments compared to the control (Chapman EH, et al, 1999).
The purpose of a prospective trial was to assess homeopathy’s effectiveness in hyperactive patients compared to methylphenidate (MPD), a prescription drug given to children with ADHD. One hundred and fifteen children (92 boys and 23 girls), were included, with an average age of 8.3 years. After treatment for 3.5 months, 75% of children had responded to homeopathy with a clinical improvement rating of 73%. Twenty-two percent of children needed MPD. Researchers concluded, “Where treatment of a hyperactive child is not urgent, homeopathy is a valuable alternative to MPD…In preschoolers, homeopathy appears a particularly useful treatment for ADHD” (Frei H, Thurneysen A, 2001).
The long-term outcome from homeopathic treatment was studied in 3,981 patients (2851 adults and 1130 children) in Germany and Switzerland, who were referred by 103 primary care practices having additional specialization in homeopathy. Ninety-seven percent of all diagnoses were chronic, with an average duration of eight years. For adults and young children, “major” quality of life improvements were observed after 3, 12, and 24 months, but no changes were seen in adolescents (Witt CM, et al, 2005).
Chronic primary insomnia is defined as difficulty initiating or maintaining nightly sleep for a period of at least one month. Thirty participants were selected and divided between homeopathic treatment and placebo groups, with results measured by their Sleep Diary and Sleep Impairment Index. The Sleep Diary data revealed homeopathic treatment resulted in significant increase in duration of sleep, significant improvement in Sleep Impairment Index scores, and improved responses to all questions, revealing a statistically significant difference between the groups. (Naude DF, 2010)
Young adults of both sexes — with above average scores for either cynical hostility or anxiety sensitivity and a history of coffee-induced insomnia — participated in a month-long study. Fifty-four received placebo pellets on night eight and homeopathic pellets on night 22 in 30C doses of one of two homeopathic remedies: Nux Vomica or Coffea Cruda. The remedies significantly increased total sleep time and non-REM sleep (Bell IR, 2011).
Because homeopathy is so safe, inexpensive, easy to use, and effective for 70-80% of patients, it is the first mental health treatment I suggest for children.
Excerpted with permission of the author Gracelyn Guyol from Restoring Your Child’s Mental Health: 10 Innovative Drug-Free Treatments (2018, Ajoite Publishing, Mystic, CT)
Gracelyn Guyol is the author of three books outlining successful, all-natural, drug-free solutions to mental illnesses, and has produced over 40 cable TV shows in an ongoing educational series, “Restoring Health Holistically.” In 2017 she founded the non-profit Mind Energy Innovations, Inc, to educate the public and improve patient access to drug-free treatments for mental disorders. Contact Gracelyn at https://www.facebook.com/gracelyn.guyol
Amy L. Lansky, PhD, Impossible Cure, The Promise of Homeopathy, R. L. Ranch Press (2003), www.impossiblecure.com.
Homeopathy and Mental Health Care, Integrative Practice, Principles and Research (Homeolinks Pub., 2010); all chapters are authored by leading homeopathic practitioners around the world, edited by Christopher K. Johannes, PhD, and Harry van der Zee, MD.
Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, ND, and Robert Ullman, ND, Ritalin-Free Kids (2013), and Rage-Free Kids (2005), which discuss the leading homeopathic remedies for hyperactivity and its various syndromes.
Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, is certified in classical homeopathy and one of its leading advocates. The author of 10 books, Ullman is founder of Homeopathic Educational Services, a resource center for homeopathic information and correspondence courses, which has co-published over 35 books on homeopathy with North Atlantic Books. For an informative interview of Dana Ullman about using Homeopathy for children, click here.