The ABC Homeopathy Forum
Page 1 2
Homeopathy under attack
I am copying an article from the BBC website today which reports the latest attack by the Lancet on Homeopathy.You can read it on the link below I am also copying it below just in case you cannot access the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm
I cannot believe that the Lancet has gone out of its way to attack Homeopathy in this manner and shall be interested to have the views of members of this forum on this matter which I consider is an insult to Homeopathy.
I trust that Homeopaths throughout the world will take up the challenge and prove that Homeopathy does work and what is more that it does so in a manner that is far more effective that what modern medicine can do in the case of many ailments.
I have so many cases of cures of Asthma, Insomnia, GERD, Eczema, Migraine to name only a few and I can personally vouch for the effectiveness of Homeopathy to cure these ailments which had resisted the best efforts of doctors and hospitals to do so.
Joe De Livera
Colombo
Sri Lanka
Homeopathy's benefit questioned
A leading medical journal has made a damning attack on homeopathy, saying it is no better than dummy drugs.
The Lancet says the time for more studies is over and doctors should be bold and honest with patients about homeopathy's "lack of benefit".
A Swiss-UK review of 110 trials found no convincing evidence the treatment worked any better than a placebo.
Advocates of homeopathy maintained the therapy, which works on the principle of treating like with like, does work.
Someone with an allergy, for example, who was using homeopathic medicines would attempt to beat it with an ultra-diluted dose of an agent that would cause the same symptoms.
Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo
A spokeswoman from the Society of Homeopaths
The row over homeopathy has been raging for years.
In 2002, American illusionist James Randi offered $1m to anyone able to prove, under observed conditions in a laboratory, that homeopathic remedies can really cure people.
To date, no-one has passed the preliminary tests.
In the UK, homeopathy is available on the NHS. Some argue that it should be more widely available, while others believe it should not be offered at all.
In 2000, the UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology issued a report on complementary and alternative medicine.
It reported that "any therapy that makes specific claims for being able to treat specific conditions should have evidence of being able to do this above and beyond the placebo effect".
To prove a negative is impossible. But good large studies of homeopathy do not show a difference
Researcher Professor Matthias Egger
According to Professor Matthias Egger, from the University of Berne, and Swiss colleagues from Zurich University and a UK team at the University of Bristol, homeopathy has no such evidence.
They compared 110 trials that looked at the effects of homeopathy versus placebo with 110 trials of conventional medicines for the same medical disorders or diseases.
This included trials for the treatment of asthma, allergies and muscular problems, some large and some small.
For both homeopathy and conventional medicines, the smaller trials of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than the larger trials.
However, when they looked at only the larger, high-quality trials, they found no convincing evidence that homeopathy worked any better than placebo.
Professor Egger said: "We acknowledge to prove a negative is impossible.
"But good large studies of homeopathy do not show a difference between the placebo and the homeopathic remedy, whereas in the case of conventional medicines you still see an effect."
He said some people do report feeling better after having homeopathy. He believes this is down to the whole experience of the therapy, with the homeopath spending a lot of time and attention on the individual.
"It has nothing to do with what is in the little white pill," he said.
'Research bias'
However, the Lancet also reports that a draft report on homeopathy by the World Health Organization says the majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers published over the past 40 years have demonstrated that homeopathy is superior to placebo in placebo-controlled trials.
Furthermore, it says that homeopathy is equivalent to conventional medicines in the treatment of illnesses, both in humans and animals.
Professor Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, said the draft WHO report seemed overtly biased and that all of the trials cited happened to be positive.
"They are not the most rigorous ones, not the most recent," he said.
A spokeswoman from the Society of Homeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo.
"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4183916.stm
♥ Joe De Livera on 2005-08-26
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
Joe - you will be pleased to know that in reports on tv, radio and in papers the BHA spokesman for homeopathic doctors (from the homeopathic hospitals etc in the UK) have strongly defended homeopathy today, as at all other times of 'attack'.
This trial is in the lancet, but it is a very small trial.
Also Mr Ernst often seems to discredit homeopathy and other complementary therapies in reports.
Not only the Society of Homeopaths but the other main registering bodies in the UK, and a lot of their members, are also responding to this trial and there are hot debates on radio.
Keep an eye on it - I think anything that brings homeopathy to the public's eye in this way can ultimately do more good than harm by creating more interest and spreading the word more!
The other article a lot in the press in the Uk at present is Prince Charle's drive to fund investigation and research into alternative therapies.
This trial is in the lancet, but it is a very small trial.
Also Mr Ernst often seems to discredit homeopathy and other complementary therapies in reports.
Not only the Society of Homeopaths but the other main registering bodies in the UK, and a lot of their members, are also responding to this trial and there are hot debates on radio.
Keep an eye on it - I think anything that brings homeopathy to the public's eye in this way can ultimately do more good than harm by creating more interest and spreading the word more!
The other article a lot in the press in the Uk at present is Prince Charle's drive to fund investigation and research into alternative therapies.
erika last decade
Hello,
They never mentioned how animals are helped by homeopathy which cancels out their 'placibo' effect argument.
They simply haven't researched enogh and really 'proof is in the pudding'
Laura Lian
They never mentioned how animals are helped by homeopathy which cancels out their 'placibo' effect argument.
They simply haven't researched enogh and really 'proof is in the pudding'
Laura Lian
Laura Lian last decade
They would need to tell me how this case would have helped ?
It's been many years, I remember this case as this was first time that I prescribed the medicine to anyone and the result was brilliant.
My nephew age around 7 was suffering from enuresis for 1 1/2 month. I saw him at my brother's wedding and saw him wetting his cloth during day and night. He was taking some conventional medicine but it was not helping him. My father was asking if my brother or sister-in-law(who are doctor in conventional medicine) can prescribe him medicine as the medicine he was taking was not helping. Anyway, they were busy at the time and could not prescribe the medicine. So I thought of trying homeopathic medicine. Consulted boerick's materica medica, and 'The Prescriber' and decided to try Belladona 6c. By the time I got the remady from the pharmecy, my nephew was at sleep so I thought of giving him the medicine in the morning but my father insisted of putting the globules in his mouth. So I put the medicine in his mouth and naturally he spit it out. To my amazement (at the time. Now no more ;) my nephew did not wet his cloth that night or next day or after that.
So, how this could have worked when the patient did not evn know that he had taken medicine ?
It's been many years, I remember this case as this was first time that I prescribed the medicine to anyone and the result was brilliant.
My nephew age around 7 was suffering from enuresis for 1 1/2 month. I saw him at my brother's wedding and saw him wetting his cloth during day and night. He was taking some conventional medicine but it was not helping him. My father was asking if my brother or sister-in-law(who are doctor in conventional medicine) can prescribe him medicine as the medicine he was taking was not helping. Anyway, they were busy at the time and could not prescribe the medicine. So I thought of trying homeopathic medicine. Consulted boerick's materica medica, and 'The Prescriber' and decided to try Belladona 6c. By the time I got the remady from the pharmecy, my nephew was at sleep so I thought of giving him the medicine in the morning but my father insisted of putting the globules in his mouth. So I put the medicine in his mouth and naturally he spit it out. To my amazement (at the time. Now no more ;) my nephew did not wet his cloth that night or next day or after that.
So, how this could have worked when the patient did not evn know that he had taken medicine ?
vlohia last decade
I was simply appalled to see the BBC news report in their news bulletin at midnight last night (18.00 hrs GMT) about this latest attack on Homeopathy by Mr Ernst who you state had on previous occasions attacked Homeopathy. I was gratified to learn that a spokesman for the BHA has strongly defended homeopathy and that others are also defending homeopathy on the radio in the UK.
I feel that it is now time to stop defending homeopathy after it is attacked by others. I would like to propose to all Homeopaths who may read this post that it is time that we conducted tests whicn hopefully will be moderated by neutral parties in the world capitals, to end this unending debate of whether or not Homeopathic remedies can help to cure various ailments.
It is only too obvious that the real reason for these attacks is because the Pharmaceutical companies are only too aware that it is in their own interest to attack Homeopathy whenever the opportunity presents itself. I do appreciate your point that these attacks do tend to increase the public awareness of Homeopathy throughout the world but this seems to me to be too passive in its concept.
It is indeed unfortunate that we who are dedicated to Homeopathy have the tendency to favour the passive form of defending Homeopathy instead of actively proving that Homeopathic remedies can hold their own in comparison to the thousands of drugs used today many of which have created fatal results like Vioxx which is in the spotlight today. I believe that Homeopathy is attacked by interested parties as they are fully aware that a remedy when used correctly can cure a patient in a manner that may seem miraculous, and cannot be replicated by any drug. It seems a shame that those who attack Homeopathy have not used it themselves especially when they have discovered that drugs used for an ailment like Eczema which have not been cured by drugs used over a long period of time react positively within a few days to a simple Homeopathic remedy.
It is a pity that I live in Sri Lanka as I
would have been the first to promote a positive form of attack on the people who actively foster this culture of spreading suspicion of Homeopathy in the UK.
I do hope that the Homeopathic fraternity will wake up and take suitable action to carry out trials such as those that were attempted in 2002 to win the James Randi prize, to prove that Homeopathy really does work and that it is not just another illusion that it does so.
I feel that it is now time to stop defending homeopathy after it is attacked by others. I would like to propose to all Homeopaths who may read this post that it is time that we conducted tests whicn hopefully will be moderated by neutral parties in the world capitals, to end this unending debate of whether or not Homeopathic remedies can help to cure various ailments.
It is only too obvious that the real reason for these attacks is because the Pharmaceutical companies are only too aware that it is in their own interest to attack Homeopathy whenever the opportunity presents itself. I do appreciate your point that these attacks do tend to increase the public awareness of Homeopathy throughout the world but this seems to me to be too passive in its concept.
It is indeed unfortunate that we who are dedicated to Homeopathy have the tendency to favour the passive form of defending Homeopathy instead of actively proving that Homeopathic remedies can hold their own in comparison to the thousands of drugs used today many of which have created fatal results like Vioxx which is in the spotlight today. I believe that Homeopathy is attacked by interested parties as they are fully aware that a remedy when used correctly can cure a patient in a manner that may seem miraculous, and cannot be replicated by any drug. It seems a shame that those who attack Homeopathy have not used it themselves especially when they have discovered that drugs used for an ailment like Eczema which have not been cured by drugs used over a long period of time react positively within a few days to a simple Homeopathic remedy.
It is a pity that I live in Sri Lanka as I
would have been the first to promote a positive form of attack on the people who actively foster this culture of spreading suspicion of Homeopathy in the UK.
I do hope that the Homeopathic fraternity will wake up and take suitable action to carry out trials such as those that were attempted in 2002 to win the James Randi prize, to prove that Homeopathy really does work and that it is not just another illusion that it does so.
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
It is so unfortunate that the so called scientists with all their 'rationality' and 'technical sophistication' fail to see the plain and simple truth that alternative therapies work and work much, much better than their cocktail of different poisons.The very fact that they have chosen to attack Homeopathy indicates their feeling of insecurity at the increasing popularity of this noble science.Any fool can see why they are after this subject.It is because it is capable of curing a complex case for a few dollars where thousands of dollars worth of drugs are useless.If they allow it to encroach upon the global health market share it will erode into billions of dollars worth of sales and profits for the pharma companies. It is a biased study where the objective is determined even before starting the study.All homeopaths around the world should join hands to rebut this malicious study in the respective medias of their countries.
One method which comes to my mind is as follows. I am sure a number of homeopaths would have their reach and influence in the media of their respective countries.If such influential homeopaths could arrange to publish or broadcast/telecast programs showing remarkably complex cases where homeopathy cured including the testimonials of live patients, on a sustained basis, it will definitely help. Another could be to take up as a public challenge cases rejected by the allopathic school as beyond cure and go on to cure such cases under media scrutiny. Another solution is to go on helping and curing and educating selflessly as many patients as one can to spread its message.This is what i have vowed to do during my entire remaining life. I hope other homeopaths on this forum and elsewhere would join hands with me and take a pledge to serve homeopathy and mankind with honesty and compassion.People like Joe are a shining example of this spirit.Hats off to him and other such noble souls.
These are my two cents on this topic.Let us all join hands and give a damn to the so called 'scientific school of medicine'.
Rajiv
One method which comes to my mind is as follows. I am sure a number of homeopaths would have their reach and influence in the media of their respective countries.If such influential homeopaths could arrange to publish or broadcast/telecast programs showing remarkably complex cases where homeopathy cured including the testimonials of live patients, on a sustained basis, it will definitely help. Another could be to take up as a public challenge cases rejected by the allopathic school as beyond cure and go on to cure such cases under media scrutiny. Another solution is to go on helping and curing and educating selflessly as many patients as one can to spread its message.This is what i have vowed to do during my entire remaining life. I hope other homeopaths on this forum and elsewhere would join hands with me and take a pledge to serve homeopathy and mankind with honesty and compassion.People like Joe are a shining example of this spirit.Hats off to him and other such noble souls.
These are my two cents on this topic.Let us all join hands and give a damn to the so called 'scientific school of medicine'.
Rajiv
♡ rajivprasad last decade
I do agree with you both - The James Randi challenge was interesting - but the trial was not totally homeopathic in essence, for example in the way the remedies were made - I think the homeopathic pharmacists declined to join the challenge. Interestingly it kind of come out in support of homeopathy, as have other trials - but the trials that have shown success have not necessarily increased the public's interest or belief in homeopathy in the UK - they have often been dismissed. As you rightly point to the money involved in pharmaceutical production - this is certainly connected.
However, the current media drive has increased the interest in homeopathy and brought more awareness than all the former trials that aimed to prove homeopathy works - and certainly those who have used homeopathy successfully are hotly defending it - so this is not passive publicity at present!!
The only real proof is for homeopaths to keep records, contact patients about performance levels, rate of cure etc. etc. and present these after 10 or so years in a totally ethical manner. Certainly very few patients would want their confidentiality breached in the media!
I do agree with just getting on and curing as many patients as possible and spreading the word in this way - it is the most practical for me and the most rewarding for patients and homeopath alike. For every seed that is sown and oak may grow - and just how mighty is an oak albeit passive!
However, the current media drive has increased the interest in homeopathy and brought more awareness than all the former trials that aimed to prove homeopathy works - and certainly those who have used homeopathy successfully are hotly defending it - so this is not passive publicity at present!!
The only real proof is for homeopaths to keep records, contact patients about performance levels, rate of cure etc. etc. and present these after 10 or so years in a totally ethical manner. Certainly very few patients would want their confidentiality breached in the media!
I do agree with just getting on and curing as many patients as possible and spreading the word in this way - it is the most practical for me and the most rewarding for patients and homeopath alike. For every seed that is sown and oak may grow - and just how mighty is an oak albeit passive!
erika last decade
It is relally annoying, such reports put doubts in the minds of people who are not aware of Homeopathy. For instance, here (where I am residing) in UAE (Dubai) Homeopathy including other alternative medecines were approved and starts to practice. Today, I saw in one of the leading news paper the same article (Lancet) published. It realy gives you the impression that they wish the people stay away from Homeopathy/Alternative medication. It was shocking to see the article. As I am an Indian we know very well how Homeopathy is working. Me myself a Homeo user, and my son now 9 years old had very rarely used Alopathy. In nine years I can even count it. He is under (99%) under Homeo, so me myself and my son is a living example for its relevance. I don't trust 100% the validity of the so called Laboratory trials. The people who had been cured by Homeopathy is the evidence itself, and I belive Homeopathy is belssings from god and hats-off to Homeopathy and Samuel Hanimann.
Best Regards
Best Regards
kunjukb last decade
When I first posted this thread in the early hours of this morning I had just seen the TV news from the BBC at midnight local time in Colombo (18.00hrs GMT) and was simply appalled to see the BBC quoting the Lancet as having attacked Homeopathy in a manner that left much to be desired, especially in the choice of language used in its editorial entitled "The End of Homeopathy". I felt that it was very unfortunate that this prestigious medical journal should have descended to this level in stating that Homeopathy was just a waste of time and that the remedies that are used are just sugar balls.
I live in Sri Lanka and have not been exposed to current trends in Homeopathy in the UK and the US as the information that I have is what is published in the media. I have often wondered what the reason is that Homeopathy has not fought back actively on the same basis that was resorted to by the Lancet, in exposing the hit or miss methods used in medicine, especially the manner that it is practiced where a patient who comes with an ailment to a doctor is often subjected to a cursory examination and given a variety of drugs which provide a blanket cover for the ailment on the basis that if one drug does not work, the other should. This is so unlike the methods used in Homeopathy and I feel that it is time now for Homeopaths throughout the world to join hands to actively counter the falsehoods that are perpetrated by medical journals such as the Lancet and most important of all, to stop defending Homeopathy after it is attacked by others.
I would like to propose to all Homeopaths who may read this post that it is time that we conducted tests whicn hopefully will be moderated by neutral parties in the world capitals, to end this unending debate of whether or not Homeopathic remedies can help to cure various ailments.
It is only too obvious that the real reason for these attacks is because the Pharmaceutical companies are alarmed by the growth of popularity of Homeopathy throughout the world, and have chosen to attack Homeopathy as they are only too aware that it is in their own interest to do so whenever the opportunity presents itself. It has been said that these attacks do tend to increase the public awareness of Homeopathy but this seems to me to be too passive in its concept.
It is indeed unfortunate that we who are dedicated to Homeopathy have the tendency to favour the passive form of defending Homeopathy instead of actively proving that Homeopathic remedies can hold their own in comparison to the thousands of drugs used today, many of which have created fatal results like Vioxx which is in the spotlight today. I believe that Homeopathy is attacked by interested parties as they are fully aware that a remedy when used correctly can cure a patient in a manner that may seem miraculous, and cannot be replicated by any drug. It seems a shame that those who attack Homeopathy have not used it themselves especially when they discovered that drugs used for an ailment like Eczema which have not been cured by drugs used over a long period of time, react positively within a few days to a simple Homeopathic remedy.
It is a pity that I live in Sri Lanka as I would have been the first to promote a positive form of attack on the people who actively foster this culture of spreading falsehoods about Homeopathy in the UK and throughout the world. I do hope that the Homeopathic fraternity will wake up and take suitable action to carry out trials such as those that were attempted in 2002 to win the James Randi prize, to prove that Homeopathy really does work and that it is not just another illusion that it does so. We have up to now been involved in our own petty squabbles that we often lose sight of the opportunities that are available to us to promote Homeopathy actively.
I hope that some form of positive action is taken in the UK to counter the negative effects that can be promoted by journals like the Lancet and shall leave it to the Homeopathic fraternity to think of a positive approach to show the Lancet and those behind this article that Homeopathy can in most instances help to cure ailments more effectively than medicine using powerful drugs, which in some cases have proved fatal to the patients who used them.
I live in Sri Lanka and have not been exposed to current trends in Homeopathy in the UK and the US as the information that I have is what is published in the media. I have often wondered what the reason is that Homeopathy has not fought back actively on the same basis that was resorted to by the Lancet, in exposing the hit or miss methods used in medicine, especially the manner that it is practiced where a patient who comes with an ailment to a doctor is often subjected to a cursory examination and given a variety of drugs which provide a blanket cover for the ailment on the basis that if one drug does not work, the other should. This is so unlike the methods used in Homeopathy and I feel that it is time now for Homeopaths throughout the world to join hands to actively counter the falsehoods that are perpetrated by medical journals such as the Lancet and most important of all, to stop defending Homeopathy after it is attacked by others.
I would like to propose to all Homeopaths who may read this post that it is time that we conducted tests whicn hopefully will be moderated by neutral parties in the world capitals, to end this unending debate of whether or not Homeopathic remedies can help to cure various ailments.
It is only too obvious that the real reason for these attacks is because the Pharmaceutical companies are alarmed by the growth of popularity of Homeopathy throughout the world, and have chosen to attack Homeopathy as they are only too aware that it is in their own interest to do so whenever the opportunity presents itself. It has been said that these attacks do tend to increase the public awareness of Homeopathy but this seems to me to be too passive in its concept.
It is indeed unfortunate that we who are dedicated to Homeopathy have the tendency to favour the passive form of defending Homeopathy instead of actively proving that Homeopathic remedies can hold their own in comparison to the thousands of drugs used today, many of which have created fatal results like Vioxx which is in the spotlight today. I believe that Homeopathy is attacked by interested parties as they are fully aware that a remedy when used correctly can cure a patient in a manner that may seem miraculous, and cannot be replicated by any drug. It seems a shame that those who attack Homeopathy have not used it themselves especially when they discovered that drugs used for an ailment like Eczema which have not been cured by drugs used over a long period of time, react positively within a few days to a simple Homeopathic remedy.
It is a pity that I live in Sri Lanka as I would have been the first to promote a positive form of attack on the people who actively foster this culture of spreading falsehoods about Homeopathy in the UK and throughout the world. I do hope that the Homeopathic fraternity will wake up and take suitable action to carry out trials such as those that were attempted in 2002 to win the James Randi prize, to prove that Homeopathy really does work and that it is not just another illusion that it does so. We have up to now been involved in our own petty squabbles that we often lose sight of the opportunities that are available to us to promote Homeopathy actively.
I hope that some form of positive action is taken in the UK to counter the negative effects that can be promoted by journals like the Lancet and shall leave it to the Homeopathic fraternity to think of a positive approach to show the Lancet and those behind this article that Homeopathy can in most instances help to cure ailments more effectively than medicine using powerful drugs, which in some cases have proved fatal to the patients who used them.
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
I also watched BBC last night and was very upset to hear their veiw on Homeopathy.
Why don't an analysis on patients were on allopathic medications for several years without a cure but a lot of side effects, almost dying by those side effects. It is unacceptable, far from the truth.
It's look like they fear watching the growth of Homeopathy.
Sam
Why don't an analysis on patients were on allopathic medications for several years without a cure but a lot of side effects, almost dying by those side effects. It is unacceptable, far from the truth.
It's look like they fear watching the growth of Homeopathy.
Sam
sthillaiyah last decade
My two cents worth is 'BRAVO'to all of you!!
I don't know enough to be able to go out and proclaim the benefits of Homeopathy to others in any big way, but everyone that will listen to me I tell them what it has done for me. Knowing how I have been, they also can see it is helping me!
All I know is since starting to use Homeopathic Remedies..my life is changing! And that is just in the last couple months!
I actually am starting to 'live again' and be able to do so many more physical things that I couldn't do before! (50 yrs ago I had injuries from my neck to my tailbone)
I am so thankful that I heard about Homeopathy!!!
I don't know enough to be able to go out and proclaim the benefits of Homeopathy to others in any big way, but everyone that will listen to me I tell them what it has done for me. Knowing how I have been, they also can see it is helping me!
All I know is since starting to use Homeopathic Remedies..my life is changing! And that is just in the last couple months!
I actually am starting to 'live again' and be able to do so many more physical things that I couldn't do before! (50 yrs ago I had injuries from my neck to my tailbone)
I am so thankful that I heard about Homeopathy!!!
cruthbh last decade
I am copying an article that appeared in a forum to which I subscribe, which members may find interesting.
It is this form of response that I hoped would be forthcoming from homeopaths throughout the world, to which I referred in my previous posts, to be part of the 'attack' group who could in so many ways contribute towards overcoming the passive mentality that we have all adopted so far in 'defending' homeopathy. This, I believe is the reason why we are now subjected to active attacks from the allopathic group, who are obviously concerned that the ground under their feet is slowly being eroded by the advance of Homeopathy. I believe that it is now time to lay aside our timidity and meet attack with attack, as I am convinced that this is the best form of defense.
I consider the editorial in the Lancet to be about the lowest form of journalism to which a prestigious journal, medical or otherwise could have descended. When they go out of their way to criticize another branch of medicine which has peacefully existed for many centuries side by side and has been proved to be as effective as their own, in the manner that they chose to do in an editorial, it leaves much to be desired. I do hope that they will not give vent in a similar manner in future to their frustration, which I presume is caused by their realization of the obvious erosion of their power base in medicine, which they consider as the only curative form of therapy to save mankind. As we all now know, it is this same medicine that has been exposed during the recent past to have been the cause of thousands of deaths throughout the world.
I do hope that others too will help to encourage positive thinking on the part of Homeopaths to counter attacks such as this in the future.
I copy the article below:
"The Lancet article is nuts. The authors have willfully chosen to
overlook a considerable body of evidence from various clinical trials
and studies, some of which are referenced in Dana Ullman's book
"Discovering Homeopathy." However, some of the most powerful
objective evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy is the record
it has achieved in treating patients during epidemics. The following
is from Ullman's book, pp. 42-43:
"However, probably the most important reason that homeopathy developed
such immense popularity was its success in treating the various
epidemic diseases that raged throughout America and Europe during the
1800s. Statistics indicate that the death rates in homeopathic
hospitals from these epidemics were often one-half to as little as
one-eighth those in orthodox medical hospitals. The homeopaths in
Cincinnati were so successful in treating people during the 1849
cholera epidemic that they published a daily list of their patients in
the newspaper, giving names and addresses of those who were cured and
those who died. [Current privacy issues aside, that takes real
confidence in your medicine, publicizing your patients' names so the
whole world can see just how effective you are as a physician!] Only
3 percent of the 1,116 homeopathic patients died, while between 48 and
60 percent of those under orthodox treatment died. [Some placebo
effect!!!]
"The success of homeopaths in treating the yellow fever epidemic of
1878 that spread throughout the south was so impressive that
homeopathy finally began to be noticed in the region. Death rates for
those under homeopathic care were approximately one-third what they
were for those using orthodox medicine.
"Besides offering effective treatment for infectious diseases,
homeopaths provided care for a wide range of acute and chronic
disease. The observations that patients under homeopathic care lived
longer than others led some life insurance companies to offer a 10
percent discount to homeopathic patients. There is also actuarial
evidence that more life insurance money was paid to beneficiaries of
homeopathic patients because those people lived longer"
So homeopathy doesn't work, eh? And it's all placebo effect [tell
that to the homeopathic vets who treat animals]? If so, who in his or
her right mind wouldn't choose homeopathy and its amazing record over
the "true medicine" of allopathy with its terrible side effects and
criminal death rate? I'll take that "ineffective placebo" every time."
It is this form of response that I hoped would be forthcoming from homeopaths throughout the world, to which I referred in my previous posts, to be part of the 'attack' group who could in so many ways contribute towards overcoming the passive mentality that we have all adopted so far in 'defending' homeopathy. This, I believe is the reason why we are now subjected to active attacks from the allopathic group, who are obviously concerned that the ground under their feet is slowly being eroded by the advance of Homeopathy. I believe that it is now time to lay aside our timidity and meet attack with attack, as I am convinced that this is the best form of defense.
I consider the editorial in the Lancet to be about the lowest form of journalism to which a prestigious journal, medical or otherwise could have descended. When they go out of their way to criticize another branch of medicine which has peacefully existed for many centuries side by side and has been proved to be as effective as their own, in the manner that they chose to do in an editorial, it leaves much to be desired. I do hope that they will not give vent in a similar manner in future to their frustration, which I presume is caused by their realization of the obvious erosion of their power base in medicine, which they consider as the only curative form of therapy to save mankind. As we all now know, it is this same medicine that has been exposed during the recent past to have been the cause of thousands of deaths throughout the world.
I do hope that others too will help to encourage positive thinking on the part of Homeopaths to counter attacks such as this in the future.
I copy the article below:
"The Lancet article is nuts. The authors have willfully chosen to
overlook a considerable body of evidence from various clinical trials
and studies, some of which are referenced in Dana Ullman's book
"Discovering Homeopathy." However, some of the most powerful
objective evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy is the record
it has achieved in treating patients during epidemics. The following
is from Ullman's book, pp. 42-43:
"However, probably the most important reason that homeopathy developed
such immense popularity was its success in treating the various
epidemic diseases that raged throughout America and Europe during the
1800s. Statistics indicate that the death rates in homeopathic
hospitals from these epidemics were often one-half to as little as
one-eighth those in orthodox medical hospitals. The homeopaths in
Cincinnati were so successful in treating people during the 1849
cholera epidemic that they published a daily list of their patients in
the newspaper, giving names and addresses of those who were cured and
those who died. [Current privacy issues aside, that takes real
confidence in your medicine, publicizing your patients' names so the
whole world can see just how effective you are as a physician!] Only
3 percent of the 1,116 homeopathic patients died, while between 48 and
60 percent of those under orthodox treatment died. [Some placebo
effect!!!]
"The success of homeopaths in treating the yellow fever epidemic of
1878 that spread throughout the south was so impressive that
homeopathy finally began to be noticed in the region. Death rates for
those under homeopathic care were approximately one-third what they
were for those using orthodox medicine.
"Besides offering effective treatment for infectious diseases,
homeopaths provided care for a wide range of acute and chronic
disease. The observations that patients under homeopathic care lived
longer than others led some life insurance companies to offer a 10
percent discount to homeopathic patients. There is also actuarial
evidence that more life insurance money was paid to beneficiaries of
homeopathic patients because those people lived longer"
So homeopathy doesn't work, eh? And it's all placebo effect [tell
that to the homeopathic vets who treat animals]? If so, who in his or
her right mind wouldn't choose homeopathy and its amazing record over
the "true medicine" of allopathy with its terrible side effects and
criminal death rate? I'll take that "ineffective placebo" every time."
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
I am copying an article from the National Center for Homeopathy dated August 25 2005 which gives the reaction from US Scientists to the editorial which was published in the Lancet of August 27,2005.
NCH Press Release
August 25, 2005
Prominent U.S. Research Scientists Counter Lancet Claims On Homeopathy
Alexandria, VA.:
Prominent U.S. scientists today strongly rejected findings on homeopathic medicine to be published in the August 27, 2005 edition of the Lancet. The study in question was the work of Aijing Shang and colleagues from the University of Berne in Switzerland. The U.S. scientists rejecting the conclusions of the study are Dr. Rustum Roy Ph.D. (Penn State University), Dr. IrisBell, M.D., Ph.D. (University of Arizona) and Dr. Joyce Frye D.O., M.B.A. (University of Pennsylvania).
"Shang et al. have successfully applied a methodological approach to the articles they reviewed that is highly suitable for drawing conclusions about conventional medicine but is incomplete in evaluating homeopathic medicine. They did not include criteria that would apply to high quality homeopathic research reflecting the nature of homeopathic practice. Such criteria include consideration of the quality of the homeopathy provided", said Iris Bell, M.D., Ph.D.
"Furthermore, a single remedy selection for a given conventionally-diagnosed condition is not homeopathy, yet there are numerous conventionally-judged high quality studies that were so designed. The analogy would be to test the effects of penicillin for all patients with symptoms of an apparent infection. The quality of the studies would otherwise be excellent in design. However, penicillin will not work for patients with viral infections or bacterial infections resistant to its effects or for persons with fevers from other non-infectious causes - and it thus might show benefit only for a subset of patients with symptoms of infections, i.e., the ones with true penicillin-sensitive infections. How would penicillin fare in a meta-analysis of studies designed to ignore the intrinsic nature of penicillin in benefiting patients?" said Bell.
Joyce Frye DO, MBA commented that the study's authors seemed to begin their work with a bias. "While their analysis clearly showed effects of homeopathic treatment - they found ways to disregard those. Out of the millions of trials in conventional medicine, their primary outcome relied on the comparison of ridiculously small numbers--8 trials of homeopathy and 6 trials of conventional medicine. They began their work with the assumption 'that the effects observed in placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy could be explained by a combination of methodological deficiencies and biased reporting'. Sound research is not conducted from this starting position."
Among other topics, the Lancet challenges the plausibility of homeopathic effects given that homeopathic remedies are often administered in dilutions in excess of Avogadro's number. Dr. Rustum Roy, Ph.D. distinguished material scientist from Penn State University commented that the chemistry argument made in this study and by conventional medicine in general is false science. "The underpinning of the editorial content of the Lancet as it relates to homeopathy relies on a quaint old idea from the nineteenth century that the ONLY way that the property of water can be affected or changed is by incorporating foreign molecules. This is the Avogadro-limit high-school level chemistry argument. To a materials scientist this notion is absurd, since the fundamental paradigm of materials-science is that the structure-property relationship is the basic determinant of everything. It is a fact that the structure of water and therefore the informational content of water can be altered in infinite ways"
NCH Press Release
August 25, 2005
Prominent U.S. Research Scientists Counter Lancet Claims On Homeopathy
Alexandria, VA.:
Prominent U.S. scientists today strongly rejected findings on homeopathic medicine to be published in the August 27, 2005 edition of the Lancet. The study in question was the work of Aijing Shang and colleagues from the University of Berne in Switzerland. The U.S. scientists rejecting the conclusions of the study are Dr. Rustum Roy Ph.D. (Penn State University), Dr. IrisBell, M.D., Ph.D. (University of Arizona) and Dr. Joyce Frye D.O., M.B.A. (University of Pennsylvania).
"Shang et al. have successfully applied a methodological approach to the articles they reviewed that is highly suitable for drawing conclusions about conventional medicine but is incomplete in evaluating homeopathic medicine. They did not include criteria that would apply to high quality homeopathic research reflecting the nature of homeopathic practice. Such criteria include consideration of the quality of the homeopathy provided", said Iris Bell, M.D., Ph.D.
"Furthermore, a single remedy selection for a given conventionally-diagnosed condition is not homeopathy, yet there are numerous conventionally-judged high quality studies that were so designed. The analogy would be to test the effects of penicillin for all patients with symptoms of an apparent infection. The quality of the studies would otherwise be excellent in design. However, penicillin will not work for patients with viral infections or bacterial infections resistant to its effects or for persons with fevers from other non-infectious causes - and it thus might show benefit only for a subset of patients with symptoms of infections, i.e., the ones with true penicillin-sensitive infections. How would penicillin fare in a meta-analysis of studies designed to ignore the intrinsic nature of penicillin in benefiting patients?" said Bell.
Joyce Frye DO, MBA commented that the study's authors seemed to begin their work with a bias. "While their analysis clearly showed effects of homeopathic treatment - they found ways to disregard those. Out of the millions of trials in conventional medicine, their primary outcome relied on the comparison of ridiculously small numbers--8 trials of homeopathy and 6 trials of conventional medicine. They began their work with the assumption 'that the effects observed in placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy could be explained by a combination of methodological deficiencies and biased reporting'. Sound research is not conducted from this starting position."
Among other topics, the Lancet challenges the plausibility of homeopathic effects given that homeopathic remedies are often administered in dilutions in excess of Avogadro's number. Dr. Rustum Roy, Ph.D. distinguished material scientist from Penn State University commented that the chemistry argument made in this study and by conventional medicine in general is false science. "The underpinning of the editorial content of the Lancet as it relates to homeopathy relies on a quaint old idea from the nineteenth century that the ONLY way that the property of water can be affected or changed is by incorporating foreign molecules. This is the Avogadro-limit high-school level chemistry argument. To a materials scientist this notion is absurd, since the fundamental paradigm of materials-science is that the structure-property relationship is the basic determinant of everything. It is a fact that the structure of water and therefore the informational content of water can be altered in infinite ways"
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
IF homeopathy works by placebo, at least it does still work.
Do I take it thinking it's a placebo? No, but I admit that might be a possibility.
Some conventional medicines, like Seoxat, an antidepressant, contain ingredients that counter-act even their placebo effect. (Seroxat lead to more suicides!)
Do I take it thinking it's a placebo? No, but I admit that might be a possibility.
Some conventional medicines, like Seoxat, an antidepressant, contain ingredients that counter-act even their placebo effect. (Seroxat lead to more suicides!)
robertm last decade
To Robert,
RE: If it's placibo and still works..
well, What about animals?
Homeopathy helps them . I give homeopathic medicines to my cats and it really helps them with physical problems and emotional.
Enstein understood 'ebergy' he would be the first to understand how homeopathy works..it simply works on energy and vibrations of different substances..
scinetists should open their minds more to quantum physics as there lies the secrets..
Laura Lian
RE: If it's placibo and still works..
well, What about animals?
Homeopathy helps them . I give homeopathic medicines to my cats and it really helps them with physical problems and emotional.
Enstein understood 'ebergy' he would be the first to understand how homeopathy works..it simply works on energy and vibrations of different substances..
scinetists should open their minds more to quantum physics as there lies the secrets..
Laura Lian
Laura Lian last decade
All right,we have read all your complaints regarding the attacks on homeopathy,and you as defenders,let hear now people who felt nothing of all glorious remedies and homeopathy,like me.
Or why simply,if homeopathy really works just don,t prove it scientificly and earn a 1m of us$?? Till now,nobody didn't prove it clinicaly?Why?
Something is wrong or with homeopathy or with science?
Or homeopathic stupidity with water memory?Why water would remember only very small amount of remedy substance,it means the thing what you WANT to remeber it,and not hundreds trags of chemical material from entire Earth?
I have been treated for more than one with homeopathy,and non any remedy didn't prove anything!!!
Onother thing;who can prove that remedy,for instance Lycopodium 200C really has Lyc.in itself???Tell me how,when that is so extremly dilouted, during checking we woulf find only sugar or something else but not Lyc.,it could be put Sil.,instead Lyc. or simply nothing,so HOW???
How I could now or how I could be sure that Lyc.200C is really Lyc.and not lactosis or something else,what is system of checking homeo.remedies?
Your medicine is very bacward,you ahve basics in something abou 200 hundreds years ago,when medicine was in baby stage,medicine did change a lot,and you didn't!!!
YOu still operate with primitive clasiffing like PSORA,MIASM,yuo ally on subjective symptoms,of opatients,your materia medica is made based on "tales" of healthy individuals,given of homeo.remedies?!
Isn't it possible that ten healthy peiople have different impressions,you will figure it out so meny confussions in descriptions of your remedies?
Try to cure anybody who has tuberculosis with your "medicine"!!!
You will not!!!
Even your "prophet" Hahnemman,couldn't,at his time that disease was deadly,as cancer is these days.
So why anybody of you,effort all your power and publicly prove that homeopathy works and earn,a lot of money?!
Or why simply,if homeopathy really works just don,t prove it scientificly and earn a 1m of us$?? Till now,nobody didn't prove it clinicaly?Why?
Something is wrong or with homeopathy or with science?
Or homeopathic stupidity with water memory?Why water would remember only very small amount of remedy substance,it means the thing what you WANT to remeber it,and not hundreds trags of chemical material from entire Earth?
I have been treated for more than one with homeopathy,and non any remedy didn't prove anything!!!
Onother thing;who can prove that remedy,for instance Lycopodium 200C really has Lyc.in itself???Tell me how,when that is so extremly dilouted, during checking we woulf find only sugar or something else but not Lyc.,it could be put Sil.,instead Lyc. or simply nothing,so HOW???
How I could now or how I could be sure that Lyc.200C is really Lyc.and not lactosis or something else,what is system of checking homeo.remedies?
Your medicine is very bacward,you ahve basics in something abou 200 hundreds years ago,when medicine was in baby stage,medicine did change a lot,and you didn't!!!
YOu still operate with primitive clasiffing like PSORA,MIASM,yuo ally on subjective symptoms,of opatients,your materia medica is made based on "tales" of healthy individuals,given of homeo.remedies?!
Isn't it possible that ten healthy peiople have different impressions,you will figure it out so meny confussions in descriptions of your remedies?
Try to cure anybody who has tuberculosis with your "medicine"!!!
You will not!!!
Even your "prophet" Hahnemman,couldn't,at his time that disease was deadly,as cancer is these days.
So why anybody of you,effort all your power and publicly prove that homeopathy works and earn,a lot of money?!
askomacic last decade
askomacic...Each of us might have questions about different methods of healing.
Some things in life have no explanations, but we know that they work or don't work for us.
Turning it completely around and going at it from another direction, and then try and explain the cases of cancer that have come about from Allopathy medicines! Or not even cancer, side effects that have been devastating from Allopathy medicines.
That I can explain and understand, because it has effected me personally with several people in my family. Enough so, that I am going to try anything rather than prescriptions given to me by medical doctors.
If it comes to the fact that presciptions are the only way, I am not going to refuse them, but I will try very hard to avoid them.
There could be things that keep a person from being healed by something. The fact that the person is resisting help from it, I believe, keeps it from helping also.
The body is a miraculous thing, waiting to heal itself, if given the chance. I believe that homeopathy gives the body that chance.
Some things in life have no explanations, but we know that they work or don't work for us.
Turning it completely around and going at it from another direction, and then try and explain the cases of cancer that have come about from Allopathy medicines! Or not even cancer, side effects that have been devastating from Allopathy medicines.
That I can explain and understand, because it has effected me personally with several people in my family. Enough so, that I am going to try anything rather than prescriptions given to me by medical doctors.
If it comes to the fact that presciptions are the only way, I am not going to refuse them, but I will try very hard to avoid them.
There could be things that keep a person from being healed by something. The fact that the person is resisting help from it, I believe, keeps it from helping also.
The body is a miraculous thing, waiting to heal itself, if given the chance. I believe that homeopathy gives the body that chance.
cruthbh last decade
I have often wondered what the reason is that Homeopaths throughout the world have not taken action to PROVE that Homeopathy does really work. The common complaint made by those who wish to discredit Homeopathy is to question why if we are so sure that it works, it is not subjected to trials carried out by independent bodies which can establish that Homeopathic remedies do cure. It is the proof that they do cure that is the moot point and as far as I am aware there is no concerted action on the part of Homeopaths throughout the world to do independent scientific trials to prove that a remedy can cure an ailment under carefully controlled conditions.
In my post above I stated:
"It is indeed unfortunate that we who are dedicated to Homeopathy have the tendency to favour the passive form of defending Homeopathy instead of actively proving that Homeopathic remedies can hold their own in comparison to the thousands of drugs used today many of which have created fatal results like Vioxx which is in the spotlight today. I believe that Homeopathy is attacked by interested parties as they are fully aware that a remedy when used correctly can cure a patient in a manner that may seem miraculous, and cannot be replicated by any drug. It seems a shame that those who attack Homeopathy have not used it themselves especially when they have discovered that drugs used for an ailment like Eczema which have not been cured by drugs used over a long period of time react positively within a few days to a simple Homeopathic remedy.
I do hope that the Homeopathic fraternity will wake up and take suitable action to carry out trials such as those that were attempted in 2002 to win the James Randi prize, to prove that Homeopathy really does work and that it is not just another illusion that it does so."
I shall be interested to have the reaction of members of this forum on my suggestion.
In my post above I stated:
"It is indeed unfortunate that we who are dedicated to Homeopathy have the tendency to favour the passive form of defending Homeopathy instead of actively proving that Homeopathic remedies can hold their own in comparison to the thousands of drugs used today many of which have created fatal results like Vioxx which is in the spotlight today. I believe that Homeopathy is attacked by interested parties as they are fully aware that a remedy when used correctly can cure a patient in a manner that may seem miraculous, and cannot be replicated by any drug. It seems a shame that those who attack Homeopathy have not used it themselves especially when they have discovered that drugs used for an ailment like Eczema which have not been cured by drugs used over a long period of time react positively within a few days to a simple Homeopathic remedy.
I do hope that the Homeopathic fraternity will wake up and take suitable action to carry out trials such as those that were attempted in 2002 to win the James Randi prize, to prove that Homeopathy really does work and that it is not just another illusion that it does so."
I shall be interested to have the reaction of members of this forum on my suggestion.
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
Prince orders cost study of alternative medicine
Colin Blackstock
Wednesday August 24, 2005
Guardian
The Prince of Wales has asked a leading independent economist to examine whether the use of complementary therapies could save the NHS money, Clarence House said yesterday.
Christopher Smallwood, a former chief economics advisor to Barclays bank, is carrying out the report on behalf of Prince Charles to "look at the effectiveness, especially from a financial point of view, of integrated healthcare".
Paddy Haverson, the prince's spokesman, said the report was still at the first draft stage and it was hoped it would be completed by October.
A leaked draft of the report's conclusions said "economy-wide" savings of between £500m and £3.5bn could be achieved by offering spinal manipulation therapies, such as chiropractic therapy, as a standard NHS option for back pain, according to the Times.
The report also claims up to £480m could be cut from the prescription drugs bill if 10% of GPs offered homeopathy as an alternative to standard drugs, according to the paper.
In addition, £38m could be saved by switching 10% of depression patients to St John's Wort, a herbal remedy.
Mr Haverson said the prince had not sought to influence the outcome of the study and that was why he had asked an independent economic expert to examine the costs.
Mr Smallwood is not involved with the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH), which Charles founded partly to establish a place for alternative and complementary therapies in the NHS.
But he would not comment on the contents of the report. "It is entirely inappropriate for anyone to be commenting on the report when it has not even been completed, let alone published," he said.
"The Prince of Wales merely asked an eminent independent economist to look at the effectiveness, especially from a financial point of view, of integrated healthcare."
Clarence House also denied claims in the Times that the prince was breaching his constitutional role in publishing the report and said it "refuted suggestions about influencing government policy", arguing that the report would be made public and not specifically sent to any ministers.
This year the FIH issued its first guide for patients on how to seek complementary treatments from the state service, private practitioners or charities.
Nearly 6 million people - almost one in 10 members of the population - opt for complementary care each year, and a host of people in the public eye, from Madonna to Cherie Blair, are interested in an approach that may have once been called "way out".
Colin Blackstock
Wednesday August 24, 2005
Guardian
The Prince of Wales has asked a leading independent economist to examine whether the use of complementary therapies could save the NHS money, Clarence House said yesterday.
Christopher Smallwood, a former chief economics advisor to Barclays bank, is carrying out the report on behalf of Prince Charles to "look at the effectiveness, especially from a financial point of view, of integrated healthcare".
Paddy Haverson, the prince's spokesman, said the report was still at the first draft stage and it was hoped it would be completed by October.
A leaked draft of the report's conclusions said "economy-wide" savings of between £500m and £3.5bn could be achieved by offering spinal manipulation therapies, such as chiropractic therapy, as a standard NHS option for back pain, according to the Times.
The report also claims up to £480m could be cut from the prescription drugs bill if 10% of GPs offered homeopathy as an alternative to standard drugs, according to the paper.
In addition, £38m could be saved by switching 10% of depression patients to St John's Wort, a herbal remedy.
Mr Haverson said the prince had not sought to influence the outcome of the study and that was why he had asked an independent economic expert to examine the costs.
Mr Smallwood is not involved with the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH), which Charles founded partly to establish a place for alternative and complementary therapies in the NHS.
But he would not comment on the contents of the report. "It is entirely inappropriate for anyone to be commenting on the report when it has not even been completed, let alone published," he said.
"The Prince of Wales merely asked an eminent independent economist to look at the effectiveness, especially from a financial point of view, of integrated healthcare."
Clarence House also denied claims in the Times that the prince was breaching his constitutional role in publishing the report and said it "refuted suggestions about influencing government policy", arguing that the report would be made public and not specifically sent to any ministers.
This year the FIH issued its first guide for patients on how to seek complementary treatments from the state service, private practitioners or charities.
Nearly 6 million people - almost one in 10 members of the population - opt for complementary care each year, and a host of people in the public eye, from Madonna to Cherie Blair, are interested in an approach that may have once been called "way out".
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
Here is the latest attack by the Editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, on Homeopathy carried in the latest issue of his journal as reported by the Guardian yesterday.
It seems obvious to me that he is hell bent on carrying out a one-man vendetta on Homeopathy, by calling for official guidelines to be drawn up for doctors, on the use of Homeopathy for their patients. He had dismissed Homeopathy as being just sugar balls in the last issue of his journal, and has now called upon the NHS to stop the "inappropriate practice" of Homeopathy. This vendetta can only help to increase the spread of Homeopathy which is exactly what he seeks to arrest by his tirades, and I hope that good sense will prevail and that Homeopathy and Medicine (Allopathy) will remain side by side in helping to cure the ailments of suffering humanity.
I call upon all Homeopaths to voice their protest against this latest vendetta by the editor of the Lancet, as it is important that we join together today in protest at this unfair discrimination against Homeopathy, which he has decided to attack for reasons best known, only to him.
Call for NHS homeopathy guidelines
Sarah Boseley
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian
The editor of the medical journal the Lancet has called for official guidelines to be drawn up for doctors on the use of homeopathy to stop "inappropriate practice" in the NHS.
Richard Horton says the review of clinical trials which his journal published last week showed homeopathy was no better than placebos. The 250-year-old remedies, which contain tiny amounts of the herb or mineral deemed to be responsible for the relevant disease, have only a psychological effect, the review concluded.
In a letter to the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, and Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Nice), Dr Horton says that guidelines for doctors are urgently needed.
Homeopathic treatments are widely available on the NHS, he writes, with taxpayers' money used to fund them.
Nice's guidance "would add substantially to the debate about whether and to what extent homeopathy should be available on the NHS".
It seems obvious to me that he is hell bent on carrying out a one-man vendetta on Homeopathy, by calling for official guidelines to be drawn up for doctors, on the use of Homeopathy for their patients. He had dismissed Homeopathy as being just sugar balls in the last issue of his journal, and has now called upon the NHS to stop the "inappropriate practice" of Homeopathy. This vendetta can only help to increase the spread of Homeopathy which is exactly what he seeks to arrest by his tirades, and I hope that good sense will prevail and that Homeopathy and Medicine (Allopathy) will remain side by side in helping to cure the ailments of suffering humanity.
I call upon all Homeopaths to voice their protest against this latest vendetta by the editor of the Lancet, as it is important that we join together today in protest at this unfair discrimination against Homeopathy, which he has decided to attack for reasons best known, only to him.
Call for NHS homeopathy guidelines
Sarah Boseley
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian
The editor of the medical journal the Lancet has called for official guidelines to be drawn up for doctors on the use of homeopathy to stop "inappropriate practice" in the NHS.
Richard Horton says the review of clinical trials which his journal published last week showed homeopathy was no better than placebos. The 250-year-old remedies, which contain tiny amounts of the herb or mineral deemed to be responsible for the relevant disease, have only a psychological effect, the review concluded.
In a letter to the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, and Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Nice), Dr Horton says that guidelines for doctors are urgently needed.
Homeopathic treatments are widely available on the NHS, he writes, with taxpayers' money used to fund them.
Nice's guidance "would add substantially to the debate about whether and to what extent homeopathy should be available on the NHS".
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
I am copying an article that appeared in another forum which details the action that the Indian Government is taking about the attack by the Lancet on Homeopathy which is of interest.
Indian Govt takes on Lancet Report.
Incensed by the Lancet Report signalling the "End of Homeopathy", the Govt of India has declared it will supply the Lancet magazine with all
data required to show that homeopathy really works. It has said that homeopathy has been extremely popular in India ever since Dr J M
Hoenigberger arrived in 1839 to treat Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab,
curing him of paralysis of vocal chords and oedema.
Dr Hoenigberger then settled at Calcutta (now Kolkata) for a long time
before returning to Germany. Calcutta is supposed to be a bastion of
Homeopathy in India as eminent public figures studied the science,
translated Hahnemann's works, wrote about their own findings and even
discovered new drugs.
The homeopathic physicians of India have equally condemned the report
citing statistics about the growing popularity of homeopathy in India.
Dr Ramadoss, the Union Health Minister, and a physician himself, said
that in today's scenario, even modern doctors were not averse to refer
their patients to homeopathy. A report said that 87% of the physicians
in India believed that homeopathy works.
The homeopaths in India were equivocal in pointing out that it was the growing popularity of homeopathy that had led the drug industry to
sponsor the unethical and flawed report. They said it was surprised
that Lancet, which had previously published reports that homeopathy
works, would do a turnaround and declare the "end of homeopathy". They
said homeopathy was in the threshold of a new dawn.
Only the Times of India in India has published the Lancet Report. And
now today it has published the statement of Dr Ramadoss prominently thus atoning for its earlier sins. Homeopathy has a very large
following in India and has been officially recognised since 1937.
Indian Govt takes on Lancet Report.
Incensed by the Lancet Report signalling the "End of Homeopathy", the Govt of India has declared it will supply the Lancet magazine with all
data required to show that homeopathy really works. It has said that homeopathy has been extremely popular in India ever since Dr J M
Hoenigberger arrived in 1839 to treat Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab,
curing him of paralysis of vocal chords and oedema.
Dr Hoenigberger then settled at Calcutta (now Kolkata) for a long time
before returning to Germany. Calcutta is supposed to be a bastion of
Homeopathy in India as eminent public figures studied the science,
translated Hahnemann's works, wrote about their own findings and even
discovered new drugs.
The homeopathic physicians of India have equally condemned the report
citing statistics about the growing popularity of homeopathy in India.
Dr Ramadoss, the Union Health Minister, and a physician himself, said
that in today's scenario, even modern doctors were not averse to refer
their patients to homeopathy. A report said that 87% of the physicians
in India believed that homeopathy works.
The homeopaths in India were equivocal in pointing out that it was the growing popularity of homeopathy that had led the drug industry to
sponsor the unethical and flawed report. They said it was surprised
that Lancet, which had previously published reports that homeopathy
works, would do a turnaround and declare the "end of homeopathy". They
said homeopathy was in the threshold of a new dawn.
Only the Times of India in India has published the Lancet Report. And
now today it has published the statement of Dr Ramadoss prominently thus atoning for its earlier sins. Homeopathy has a very large
following in India and has been officially recognised since 1937.
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
Dear joe,
This is what is happening. Business is the only basic factor behind this recent verbal or irrational attack on homoeopathy. I will give u the example of India. Most of the rural and many of the urban population in india is dependent on homoeopathic medication. Infact, many of the disease conditions doesnt reach a primary health care centers as because they are better and cured by a homoeopath. In my family we take allopathic medicine in 5% of sufferings but we are dependent on homoeopathy for rest 95%. I have many friends who do just opposite or homoeopathy was never tried by them. The way we are spending on homoeopathic medicines it is only 10% of the cost of my friend's expenditure on medicines. If most of us will depend on homoeopay for most of our day to day or chronic illnesses then we save 95% of our money on our expenditures on health. If we save 95% than pharmaceutical industry (read allopathy) loses that amount of money. So they will never digest the progress of such a mild and scientific therapy.
I was reading a book where they tell that nowdays FEW scientists work like PROSTITUTES. They are into research work because it is their bread and butter. They give statements of their findings because the money provided by the financial institutions will not come to them if they dont find/conclude so called scientifically (or at least assume), anything every few weeks. The statements given against homoeopathy by the scientist few days back was ridiculus and he should have behaved responsibly. He just wanted to make headlines, which he did with his eye catching heading- END OF HOMOEOPATHY.
Few of the wars headed by USA had a lobby back up of pharmaceutical industry because they will get business if people will die or get injured.
If the allopathic pharmaceutical industry can do this, then it is not surprising that an allopathic scientist is criticizing other therapies without even knowing the basic principles of that therapy. He must know that u cannot prove homoeopathy using allopathy principles. It is the problem of instumentation science for not able to prove action of homoeopathic medicine and lack of funds for homoeopathy faculty in every country (of course because of strong allopathy lobby).
This is what is happening. Business is the only basic factor behind this recent verbal or irrational attack on homoeopathy. I will give u the example of India. Most of the rural and many of the urban population in india is dependent on homoeopathic medication. Infact, many of the disease conditions doesnt reach a primary health care centers as because they are better and cured by a homoeopath. In my family we take allopathic medicine in 5% of sufferings but we are dependent on homoeopathy for rest 95%. I have many friends who do just opposite or homoeopathy was never tried by them. The way we are spending on homoeopathic medicines it is only 10% of the cost of my friend's expenditure on medicines. If most of us will depend on homoeopay for most of our day to day or chronic illnesses then we save 95% of our money on our expenditures on health. If we save 95% than pharmaceutical industry (read allopathy) loses that amount of money. So they will never digest the progress of such a mild and scientific therapy.
I was reading a book where they tell that nowdays FEW scientists work like PROSTITUTES. They are into research work because it is their bread and butter. They give statements of their findings because the money provided by the financial institutions will not come to them if they dont find/conclude so called scientifically (or at least assume), anything every few weeks. The statements given against homoeopathy by the scientist few days back was ridiculus and he should have behaved responsibly. He just wanted to make headlines, which he did with his eye catching heading- END OF HOMOEOPATHY.
Few of the wars headed by USA had a lobby back up of pharmaceutical industry because they will get business if people will die or get injured.
If the allopathic pharmaceutical industry can do this, then it is not surprising that an allopathic scientist is criticizing other therapies without even knowing the basic principles of that therapy. He must know that u cannot prove homoeopathy using allopathy principles. It is the problem of instumentation science for not able to prove action of homoeopathic medicine and lack of funds for homoeopathy faculty in every country (of course because of strong allopathy lobby).
doctor last decade
Doctor...
I believe you certainly hit the nail on the head with your reply. I totally agree with you.
I believe you certainly hit the nail on the head with your reply. I totally agree with you.
cruthbh last decade
You guys have to get to first base. All the trials I have seen have been miscellaneous, and not replicated. This scattergun approach to trying to prove homeopathy isn't going to work.
The problem as I see it, is that Homeopathy is not unified... any more than astrologers are unified. There are a few systems of homeopathy, eg low dilution, medium dilution, and extra high dilution, radionics, and other competing camps which disagree on whether remedies can even be mixed.
First base, for homeopaths, would be proving that something like Nux worked, repeatedly in large trials, in many countries. You have to prove that the general homeopathic effect works first, and at what dose, before you can move on to proving that it works at other potencies. Little steps. Little solid steps.
If you could prove that Nux worked, in large trials, then you could face the scientists... you would in fact be scientists yourself.
But the reason you have to remain "passive", is that you have no peak body; can't agree on anything... except that you are right about whatever you choose.
The problem as I see it, is that Homeopathy is not unified... any more than astrologers are unified. There are a few systems of homeopathy, eg low dilution, medium dilution, and extra high dilution, radionics, and other competing camps which disagree on whether remedies can even be mixed.
First base, for homeopaths, would be proving that something like Nux worked, repeatedly in large trials, in many countries. You have to prove that the general homeopathic effect works first, and at what dose, before you can move on to proving that it works at other potencies. Little steps. Little solid steps.
If you could prove that Nux worked, in large trials, then you could face the scientists... you would in fact be scientists yourself.
But the reason you have to remain "passive", is that you have no peak body; can't agree on anything... except that you are right about whatever you choose.
Complete Skeptic last decade
I believe that homeopathy could easily prove itelf to skeptics, all they have to do is get some classical homeopaths, scientists, media, patients with acute symptoms, and put them under lock and key in undisclosed location for several days, and do what science is supposed to do, watch and learn.
salty
salty
saltOftheEarth last decade
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.