They seem to claim anything that enters their head at that moment! Not surprising, as they have no standards of proof, and are quite used to making it up on the fly.
Classical homoeopathy is strictly "alternative", with most homoeopaths quite insistent that the use of real medicines will "antidote" the homoeopathic remedy. Some even claim that vaccination in infancy is enough to prevent homoeopathic remedies working in an adult. Others extend the list of taboo substances to things like coffee, perfume, even mint, I think. So there's virtually always a get-out if nothing useful seems to have happened.
As regards the effect of real medicine in antidoting homoeopathic remedies, this is from a recently-published book by a couple of veterinary homoeopaths.
There is little doubt that most orthodox drugs impede the action of homeopathic remedies. This is not surprising when one considers that the action of most of these medicines is in direct contradiction to that of homeopathy; anything which suppresses a reaction of the body will act counter to homeopathy, and considering the subtle energetic nature of homeopathic medicine it is only logical that such powerful drugs as corticosteroids and NSAIDs will antidote its effects.
I still wonder why corticosteroids should have such a marked effect, when the body is already awash with endogenous corticosteroids. Which are just as biologically active as those given as drugs, if not more so.
Anyway, that's the classical view. Real medicine will stop the homoeopathy from working, therefore you must come off real medicine before you'll get any benefit from homoeopathy.
However, an entirely contrary view has become common, especially in Britain where homoeopathy managed to get itself incorporated into the NHS. Realising that the above advice would be suicidal (not to mention frequently homicidal) medical homoeopaths have re-branded and re-marketed their product as "complementary medicine". In this version, the patient stays on whatever real medicine he or she requires, but the homoeopaths offer a little bit extra on top, and/or claim that use of homoeopathy can reduce the dose of the real medicine needed to maintain good health. This is of course completely against the principles of classical homoeopathy, but it's such good product placement (while removing the homoeopath from the danger of an action for negligence if someone were to be advised to discontinue essential medication) that it's become the most widespread form of homoeopathy in this country. Thus it is entirely justifiable to conduct trials of homoeopathy as an "adjunctive" treatment - that's how it's usually used, and in the "clinic" (as opposed to the controlled trial) the homoeopaths claim as good a success rate with this method as with any other.
Leela (at H'pathy) is an intersting example of this breed. When challenged that the standard H'pathy advice to consult a homoeopath first was dangerous, as it might lead to serious diseases going unrecognised, she insisted that all homoeopaths only see already-diagnosed patients who are already on medication, and no responsible homoeopath would ever recommend discontinuing this. Nevertheless she still claimed to be able to reduce the dose of insulin a diabetic patient would need to maintain stability, another testable claim with no evidence at all to back it up.
However, in a different thread, the same Leela was
bemoaning the fact that homoeopaths only get to see patients after they've been treated by conventional means. She was quite sure that homoeopathy could completely cure diabetes, if only they were allowed to see patients before they'd been irretrievably antidoted with all that nasty insulin.
I can't say I've ever encountered a claim that homoeopathic treatment will
increase the activity of a conventional medicine, but given their propensity for claiming anything that enters their heads, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Rolfe.
