Rajan Sankarans updated report from homoeopaths in Iran on the treatment of 30 Covid-19 patients, mainly with Camphora and Phosphorus.
From the English by Dr. Aditya Kasariyans and Dr. Rajan Sankaran - Original English article
Link to the study of 19 March 2020
Which homoeopathic remedies were used most often in the patients?
- Camph: In 26 of 30 cases Camphora 1M was given. In two patients there were no unusual or striking symptoms pointing to a particular remedy. Exclusive symptoms or modalities specific to Camph were also absent. In these two cases I followed the general course of the illness with exhaustion and weakness (patient 1) and night-time fever and chilliness (patient 2). Both patients came from the same family.
- Ars-alb: One patient was prescribed Ars-alb because the acute symptom picture did not match that of the epidemic, but rather the patient's chronic condition. The patient took Ars-alb 1M dry, initially every six hours. This was subsequently increased to Ars-alb 1M in divided doses; in total the patient took the remedy eight times, at increasingly longer intervals. Recovery occurred within four days and full health was restored.
- China: Before the Camphora picture had crystallised, China was prescribed for one patient. For three days China was given first every four hours, later every six hours. All symptoms except weakness and exhaustion had improved by the fourth day. Thereafter Camphora 1M, dissolved in water, was taken every four hours. After a total of five doses the exhaustion had completely disappeared and the patient was fully recovered six days later.
- Phos: I visited one patient at home when the good effect of Camphora had already been confirmed generally, especially in cases with pronounced exhaustion and weakness. The acute state of this patient, however, did not fit Camphora and on closer questioning I could also see a match with the patient's chronic condition. Phos C30 was prescribed. Because of the intensity of the symptoms Phos C30 was taken in divided doses every three hours. Despite severe exhaustion and marked digestive complaints the patient reported not having eaten for 15 days. After the second dose the heavy feeling in the stomach disappeared and the appetite returned enthusiastically. After two weeks he was finally able to eat a light meal again.
The first dose was given in the evening. Treatment was continued the following day at the same intervals (every three hours). After two further doses the exhaustion was gone and normal energy levels restored. The intervals between doses were increased to five hours and later to eight hours. After a total of nine doses the patient was fully recovered.
- Phos: Another patient had already spent 18 days in hospital and then came to us. Although he was taking medications he still suffered from severe cough and profound exhaustion. His symptom picture did not fit Camph and, after considering the totality of symptoms, Phos C30 was prescribed straight away.
Within 24 hours the patient's condition changed drastically and on the second day of treatment he was almost symptom-free with a markedly increased energy level. The homoeopathic treatment was stopped on the third day.
How long did recovery take under homoeopathic treatment?
The average recovery time from the start of treatment for all patients was approximately 5–6 days, regardless of their general health status.
Were all patients tested positive?
All patients were either tested positive in the laboratory or had a positive CT finding.
We also treated patients whose family members tested positive and whose symptoms exactly matched those of the disease. They were clinically conspicuous and were therefore treated conventionally for Covid-19 even without a test. We also included these cases in our small study.
In addition, we had five patients with severe flu symptoms that did not correspond to the clinical picture of Covid-19. These cases were not taken into account.
Were there patients you treated exclusively homoeopathically?
Of the 30 patients five were treated exclusively homoeopathically. These came to us on the first day or within a few days of symptom onset or diagnosis.
One female patient took hydroxychloroquine and Tamiflu 24 hours after the start of homoeopathic treatment. She had had well-controlled hypertension for 15 years, but in the course of Covid she became acutely ill with a hypertensive crisis, nausea and severe exhaustion. Homoeopathic treatment began within a few hours of diagnosis. The extreme nausea and weakness improved quickly and markedly. Conventional treatment was administered at the urging of the family, in which there had been very serious and severe Covid cases with one death. The patient recovered within six days.
The remaining patients came eight days or later after diagnosis or after symptoms began. All were treated conventionally but did not respond satisfactorily or had not yet fully recovered.
Did conventional treatment need to be adjusted or medication doses increased for the patients?
In no patient did the conventional treatment protocol need to be changed or medication increased, because recovery in all cases was very rapid and comprehensive.
One patient had been severely ill in hospital for ten days despite eleven days of medication. She was very weak and could only sit up for one to two minutes, she had shortness of breath and cough and could not eat because of severe nausea. She had little appetite anyway.
Within less than 24 hours there was a dramatic change. I was in daily contact with her and could clearly see the improvement in her condition given how long she had been in hospital.
Only on the fourth day of homoeopathic treatment was a CT scan performed because the patient was still breastfeeding and initially did not want X-rays. There was also no prior finding with which the current result could be compared. Despite the evident improvement the patient received a Kaletra injection at the urging of the family. The patient responded positively to the injection. The homoeopathic remedy was given for two more days, after which no further doses were necessary.
How do you generally assess the reaction to Camphora? Did you adjust or change your prescription during treatment?
Camphora was initially administered to various patients at different stages of the illness. Some were still in the early stage of the disease, others were already very ill or had a complicated course.
Almost without exception a dramatic improvement was seen after Camph. Energy levels improved, extreme weakness and nausea decreased. In 25 of 26 patients muscle aches, flu-like feelings, breathing difficulties and cough improved within the first 24 hours. In addition, general health and oxygen saturation improved significantly in seriously ill patients. Overall symptoms improved by about 40% in the first 24–30 hours. In four cases we had to give an additional remedy to continue treatment and achieve a cure.
Case examples:
Case 1: In this patient there was initially no improvement. Even 48 hours after the dose of Camph the patient's condition had not changed. The case was reassessed and Phos prescribed. Initial symptoms were exhaustion and muscle aches, but at the time of consultation he had a heaviness on the chest when walking and could hardly smell or taste. On questioning it emerged that the chronic condition of the patient was prominent even in the present situation. I did not have much time and had to repertorise quite quickly. In combination with the acute symptoms I arrived at Phos C30.
Case 2: This patient had no specific symptoms pointing to a particular remedy but initially responded well to Camph. Considering his advanced age and diabetes the weakness improved by about 30%. He could wash and dress himself again and his oxygen saturation recovered. A follow-up took place after two days. The patient's condition then stagnated at that level.
Case 3: In this patient too there were initially no guiding symptoms. A slight improvement occurred but then stagnated. Fever with sweating reappeared, as if the disease were finding a way to the surface.
In both cases Phos C30 was prescribed, as this remedy ranked second in relation to the homoeopathic totality of symptoms. The subsequent improvement was marked and lasting. One of the patients had to be ventilated; oxygen saturation improved after two doses of Phos.
Both patients remain under homoeopathic treatment.
Case 4: This female patient responded particularly well to Camph. She belongs to the cases in which Camph cured all signs of the acute illness. Her medical history includes long-standing hypertension and hypothyroidism that were poorly controlled despite therapy. Normal systolic blood pressure was around 150.
In addition the patient had suffered severe depression since childhood. At the time of the case history treatment for hypertension and hypothyroidism had been suspended; the patient could not take her medications because of the new infection. What remained was the deep depression.
Homoeopathic treatment began ten days after disease onset. Until then the symptoms of the infection had persisted despite conventional treatment. With Camph she was able to lead a normal life again within four days. The patient no longer had symptoms related to hypertension and hypothyroidism and the depression returned to its usual level for her. Three days after we had stopped the homoeopathic treatment the patient experienced a fine shiver along the spine at night and after midnight. This occurred every few days despite repeated administration of the homoeopathic remedy.
I could see that the patient's chronic condition was coming to the fore despite the acute event. I took the case again with the remaining symptoms as a chronic case. The appropriate remedy for this symptom and the chronic state was Crotalus cascavella.
Case 5: A patient was enormously weakened with shortness of breath and intermittent rigours. Her discharge from hospital had already been postponed twice because her condition had suddenly worsened.
I began treatment with Camph, and the patient's reaction was dramatic: the disease state improved markedly and continuously over the next five days.
A few days earlier the patient had developed a complaint she had not initially told me about: pain in the left upper back that quickly became so severe it interfered with breathing. The patient's lung capacity had already been reduced to one lung. She also had calf cramps.
She was thoroughly examined and all tests were carried out (with negative results). On the sixth day she was discharged from hospital and was to receive oxygen as part of home care. In the meantime the pain had spread to the upper right back area; its intensity had not changed. The symptoms were re-taken. The patient had a strong craving for fresh and chilled fruit juices and the totality of symptoms fitted Phos. Phos C200 was taken every four hours.
Two days later a follow-up took place. The pain was now limited to a small spot on the right upper body. The patient's energy level had improved by 50% and lung capacity had increased to the mid-range. She could again care for her personal hygiene and walk longer distances at home without becoming breathless or tired. The cure was completed with Phos.
All other patients were accompanied with Camph 1M until full recovery from the acute illness. Dosing was adapted to the individual needs of the patients.
How do you recognise that the patients' condition has truly improved?
At the moment we mainly rely on clinical symptoms. This is not to say that we equate the absence of certain symptoms with cure. However, we were able to determine that the patients were doing better both subjectively and objectively. General condition and energy levels improved rapidly and markedly. The patients became more active and the physical symptoms had improved since the start of homoeopathic treatment.
Fluctuations and relapses are part of the natural course of this disease. We have also used this criterion. In all our cases there were fewer and/or milder relapses until full recovery than one would have expected.
We have some cases in which improvement is evident from the CT findings. However, because many of our patients had already been treated conventionally before homoeopathic treatment, we cannot say with certainty that this improvement is solely attributable to homoeopathy. We are firmly convinced that the patient's recovery should always come first, regardless of which form of treatment is used.
For this reason we agree with our conventional colleagues' assessment that it will take at least four weeks for the lungs to recover fully and for an objective evaluation to be possible. The safety of our patients is our top priority. We do not urge our patients to undergo an additional CT scan simply so that we can better assess the effectiveness of our treatment. Doing so would risk re-infection in patients whose lungs and immune systems are currently extremely fragile.
How old were the patients?
On average the patients were between 40 and 70 years old.
How many patients had pre-existing conditions?
Six patients had pre-existing conditions. These included hypertension, diabetes, impairments from a previous myelitis, hypothyroidism, depression and fatty liver.
In Hahnemann's teachings there is the concept of the Genius epidemicus. Does this new pandemic still fit the traditional teaching of Hahnemann? Or do we need to adapt our understanding of the Genius epidemicus to the expanded systemic concepts in homoeopathy?
We should always prescribe based on the individual symptoms of the patient. In an epidemic, however, it can happen that the individual state is suppressed by the prevailing state of the epidemic. Hahnemann advised us to treat a certain number of patients during an epidemic first, to see whether there is a particular pattern or different patterns that fit one or more remedies.
We observed that the remedy Camphora alleviated the intensity of the illness in almost all patients. We had some patients whose symptoms did not correspond to the Camphora picture. These were very likely individual symptoms for which another remedy was indicated.
Of course we will not exclude other remedies. We must remain flexible. So far we have achieved very good results with Camphora. But we also know of reports from other respected colleagues who have successfully used other remedies. We appreciate those approaches as well.
We are in active exchange with many renowned homoeopathic colleagues around the world who have had different experiences and therefore use other remedies. We respect that. We would like to share our cases, considerations and thoughts here, but also remain open to the observations of other practitioners.
Some colleagues demand that the correct remedy must cover all stages of the disease, especially when it concerns the Genius epidemicus. If this is not the case, one cannot speak of a Genius epidemicus. What is your view?
Of course it is possible that different remedies may be indicated at different stages of the disease. Several colleagues have already pointed this out. To judge this conclusively we need more data. But we know that the pathogenesis associated with the Camphora picture includes pneumonia with collapse and other breathing difficulties in elderly people. We are of the opinion that this remedy can be effective in many stages of this disease. We have also seen from the cases described above that Phosphorus can cure once the presenting symptoms match that picture. Therefore we should remain open and flexible.
In the current debate it is also argued that one should under no circumstances prescribe the chronic remedy for the acute state, because the chronic state is not dominant. What do you think about that?
We should always prescribe according to the patient's state as it presents in that moment. If the current state of the patient shows exclusively original, chronic symptoms, only the remedy that fully covers those symptoms will cure. But if the chronic picture is not dominant and the acute symptoms of the acute disease prevail, then we must prescribe acutely.
What role do you think homoeopathy plays in this pandemic?
We may need to continue searching for the best remedies to be able to cure all stages of this disease. But based on everything we have already observed and what other colleagues report to us, we can say with certainty that homoeopathy can make a major contribution and significantly limit the consequences of this illness.
From our relatively small study alone we cannot yet draw conclusions about whether homoeopathy also affects the lethality of the disease. We do not know what would have happened if our patients had not sought homoeopathic treatment. But the patients who came to us were very ill and we can say with certainty that their condition improved markedly under homoeopathic treatment. In many patients the response to the homoeopathic remedy can even be described as dramatic.
What will you do next?
We will continue to treat our patients and report. In addition, we are advocating for a randomised double-blind study in India. An appropriate protocol has been prepared by the Central Council of Research in Homoeopathy and approved by the competent ministry of the Indian government (AYUSH: The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy).
We will now seek additional approval from the Indian Council for Medical Research. If successful, we will be able to conduct our studies officially in hospitals. We will treat each case individually and examine whether a common pattern can be identified. We believe this could be a good opportunity for homoeopathy to demonstrate its effectiveness and promote broader use during this pandemic.
In any case we believe we should pool our experiences, take stock of the situation and see whether we can reach a consensus that allows us to speak with one voice. Even if we have differences, we should learn to trust each other's experiences and respect other colleagues' considerations. Perhaps we should all work to do this even after the crisis. Maybe we can use this time to truly meet and collaborate.
One suggestion would be to organise a confidential meeting of the leading homoeopaths worldwide via Zoom. There is much confusion in the public about homoeopathy and we do not speak a common language. It is time to approach one another, discuss together and then share our results with other colleagues. We would like to propose that such a meeting be organised on a neutral basis.
At the same time we need a central forum where homoeopaths can exchange and share their experiences. That would be very helpful. We should put aside our differences, unite and meet in this critical hour with respect, solidarity and love.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/update-of-the-prior-study-of-homeopathy-for-coronavirus-covid-19-infection-in-iran-by-dr-aditya-kasariyans-and-dr-rajan-sankaran/
Photo: Shutterstock_1624563289, Copyright: joshimerbin
