Defending Homeopathy

May 14, 2016  

Professor Edzard Ernst wants to explain everywhere he can "Why I changed my mind about homeopathy." Homeopath Steve Scrutton has written a must read and share ANALYSIS of a 15 minute Dominic Lawson radio talk show interview of the Professor who attempts to rationally explain, without much success, the "changing" of his mind.

Based on a 2003 Guardian article by Sarah Boseley about Ernst "The Alternative Professor", I would like to interview Ernst as well. Ms. Boseley wrote: "This is a scientist willing to explore the unthinkable and unwilling to be told what to think. Scientific logic says homeopathy cannot work, but Ernst continues to study its therapies not to shoot it down, but in the hope of discovering what it is that does work. He treats his French wife with homeopathy, he says. 'We were both brought up with it.'" Source

May 9, 2016   The growth of a lie and the end of "conventional" medicine.

Cosimo Loré, Domenico Mastrangelo ; Med Sci Monit 2005; 11(12): SR27-31; ID: 434225

Throughout its over 200-year history, homeopathy has been proven effective in treating diseases for which conventional medicine has little to offer.

However, given its low cost,homeopathy has always represented a serious challenge and a constant threat to the profits of drug companies.

Moreover, since drug companies represent the most relevant source of funding for biomedical research worldwide, they are in a privileged position to finance detractive campaigns against homeopathy by manipulatingthe media as well as academic institutions and the medical establishment.

The basic argument against homeopathy is that in some controlled clinical trials (CCTs), comparison with conventional treatments shows that its effects are not superior to those of placebo.

Against this thesis we argue that a) CCTmethodology cannot be applied to homeopathy, b) misconduct and fraud are common in CCTs, c) adverse drug reactions and side effects show that CCT methodology is deeply flawed, d) an accurate testing of homeopathicremedies requires more sophisticated techniques, e) the placebo effect is no more "plausible" than homeopathy,and its real nature is still unexplained, and f) the placebo effect is nevertheless a "cure" and, as such, worthy of further investigation and analysis.

It is concluded that no arguments presently exist against homeopathy and that the recurrent campaigns against it represent the specific interests of the pharmaceutical industry which, in this way, strives to protect its profits from the "threat" of a safer,more effective, and much less expensive treatment modality.

Thank you for the source of this quoted material Roslyn Ross Source

This announcement of the "Homeopathy Congress" Conference (under image) was sent to me in a tweet by Klaas Van Velder Thank you!

"A Nobel and 250 experts claim the effectiveness of homeopathy in Donostia." The original article, in Spanish, can be read here THANK YOU Google Translate

San Sebastian , May 6 ( EFE ) .- The French virologist Luc Montagnier , Nobel Prize in Medicine 2008, is one of the more than 250 researchers , physicians, pharmacists and veterinarians claim , starting today in San Sebastian , the effectiveness of homeopathy and the existence of scientific evidence that support it .

Montagnier and experts in physics and quantum chemistry and in national and international bioengineering will offer various presentations from today until next Sunday at the Miramar Palace in San Sebastian , which hosts the Seventh National Congress of Homeopathy, medical meeting organized every two years regional associations integrate the Spanish Federation of Doctors Homeopaths .

Representatives of the Basque-Navarre Association , in charge of this issue , doctors Xabier Ibarburu and Guillermo Basauri , explained this morning the contents of the symposium , at a press conference in which participated the professor at the University of Strasbourg Marc Henry and the Belgian researcher Etienne Capieaux .

High dilutions and quantum coherence of homeopathic medicines will be the issue addressed Henry , who stressed that , apart from " dogmatism and prejudices , it is clear that works," because it makes quantum physics running or active , "a fundamental principle of nature. "

Henry has defended " homeopathy as a scientific discipline " and explained that its base is " the behavior of water as nanostructure " .

Capieaux meanwhile stressed " the impact " of these treatments in living cells and defend " the biological evidence of the effect of high homeopathic potencies using biomolecular tools " , for which it will rely on the results of recent " in vitro experiments with yeast " .

The Ibarburu and Basaruri doctors have reported on their part "great ignorance " and " revisionism " that exists against this type of medicine , who have defended as " a therapeutic accessible to healthcare professionals for the treatment, alleviation and cure of many pathologies " .

"We are doctors and others, only we have incorporated a more therapeutic" , said Basauri , who has rejected the " very hostile " way " Homeopathy is being attacked " by " people who do not know , nor use " .

Basauri has stressed that homeopathy is not " subtract therapeutic options to the patient, but add " options and their effectiveness is demonstrated by the clinical experience and " numerous scientific studies " .

In addition to sharing clinical experiences and the latest developments in the field, the conference aims to contribute to that " homeopathy is seen as a standard therapy, as it is in other countries."

According to data , an estimated 10,000 doctors have recommended in some homeopathic medicines used in Spain , where they are not funded by the public system , as in countries like Germany, Belgium or France, but where it exists a pharmaceutical regulation, line with European standards. EFE

Alan Schmukler • May 5, 2016 Source

Something doesn't ring true here. It's a clever way make an argument....but the reality is that 100 million people in India alone depend on homeopathy for everything from Dengue Fever to Leprosy. If it didn't work people would stop coming to homeopaths and the government would have stopped funding research into it. Hundreds of thousands of of board certified medical doctors from all over the world practice homeopathy. The 42% of British medical doctors who refer their patients to a homeopath and the 39% of French physicians who prescribe the remedies, the 20% of German physicians who prescribe homeopathic remedies, or the 40% of Dutch doctors who do the same would be surprised to know they have been using placebos. So would all the babies and animals cured by homeopathy and the plants treated for parasites and diseases. All those people, plants and animals would have to be misled and only Ernst is right. You decide.

Homeopathy, Economics, and Government

By Linda Johnston, MD, DHt Source

The history of the regulation of alternative medical therapies, particularly Homeopathy, is extremely interesting and sheds a great deal of light on the current regulatory environment. In this short review of that history, it can be seen that the current attempts at regulation have roots as far back as 200 years ago.

The early 1800's was a time of great transition in medicine. Whereas the standard, allopathic form of treatment was dominant at the turn of that century, that was not to last. The two most popular alternatives to the orthodox practice were herbal medicine and Homeopathy.

By the time Homeopathy was introduced to America in 1825, herbal medicine was already well established. Equally well established was the allopathic doctors' animosity towards any competition. The rise of Homeopathy particularly coincided with a dramatic decline in the prestige of allopathic medicine and its methods. There was a general and pervasive disdain and mistrust of allopathic medicine. One author concluded that "to many people the interests of the medical profession as a whole were opposed to the best interests of society."

Within 15 years of being introduced to America, Homeopathy was offering serious competition to allopathic medicine and by 1860, Homeopathy was flourishing with many doctors available in every state. The biggest asset to the spread of Homeopathy was the home prescriber, or unlicensed lay practitioner. America of the 1800's was predominantly rural and most areas had no physician close at hand.

Mothers treating their children's problems easily and inexpensively caused the news of Homeopathy to spread like a brush fire throughout the mid-west and eastern seaboard. While political battles and turf wars raged between the doctors, many people successfully treated typhoid, cholera, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, smallpox and other diseases with their Homeopathic remedies and without doctors.

Even the press of the day were favorable to Homeopathy and its articles often reflected the general public's contempt for allopathic medicine. One such article condemned "the rigidly anti-innovative attitude which the Old School doctors have so consistently maintained for centuries" and recommended that there be free and open competition between the two systems, "where the public will act as umpires, deciding after a careful perusal of the undertakers bills on either side."

As a consequence, extreme hatred and economic jealousy was aroused in the allopaths. These economic concerns were well documented. One review wrote of Homeopathy, "quackery .... by fraud and deception, too frequently triumphs and grows rich, where wiser and better men scarcely escape starvation." In 1846, The New York Journal of Medicine stated, "quackery occasions a large pecuniary loss to us."

The public was quite willing to pay high fees for Homeopathy, much to the consternation of the economically struggling allopaths. Most Homeopaths had higher incomes than their allopathic counterparts, having busy, thriving practices in the same areas where allopaths couldn't earn enough to live. The annual income for an allopath in 1871 averaged $1000, whereas a Homeopath's averaged $4000.

The allopaths blamed the public for the situation, contemptuously regarding them as ignorant, undiscriminating and easily deceived, clearly needing to be protected from their own perverse ignorance. It never occurred to the allopathic doctors that the public, rather than being ignorant of orthodox medicine, were very familiar with it and consequently didn't like it.

If you think doctors have outgrown this attitude from 1800, I will refer you to the recent article in the prestigious allopathic journal The New England Journal of Medicine. After reviewing the habits of a large cohort of patients, it was concluded that one third of Americans use some method of non-conventional medical treatment and pay more out of their own pocket to do so than the combined money spent on all primary care allopathic office visits.

As a result of this startling finding, the authors did not suggest further investigation as to why such a large number of patients prefer non-traditional treatment, nor was it suggested that these treatments must have something valuable to offer. Instead, in a move reminiscent of attitudes over 150 years old, the authors advised that doctors inquire if their patients are using some form of non-conventional therapy so that they can better bring these errant patients back to conventional treatment.

The brunt of the blame for declining allopathic fortunes was laid at the door of the Homeopaths. The allopaths had concern about the growing competition from Homeopathy, stated as "quackery in the profession." They felt the apparently declining standards of medical education was the cause of physicians converting to Homeopathy and these ideas were the prime motives in the founding of the American Medical Association in 1847.

It is interesting to note that the professional organization for Homeopathy equivalent to the AMA, the American Institute of Homeopathy, was founded earlier in 1844, making it the oldest professional medical organization.

Many efforts were used to advance the allopaths by discrediting, restricting and abolishing the Homeopaths. Typical were the laws passed in the early 1800's to prevent any practitioners of medicine other than the allopaths from being able to go to court to collect non-payment of fees. In every case, these and other similar laws were unenforceable and extremely unpopular with the citizenry. All were repealed within a few years.

Undaunted, the allopathic doctors then turned to their own medical societies rather than the legislative process to carry out their desire for effective restriction of Homeopathy. Allopaths granted themselves the right to restrict society membership, which was tantamount to licensing powers. Fines were levied against anyone practicing medicine without such a society membership. They had successfully usurped the power to control who could practice. Eventually even these fines were also rescinded due to unpopularity with the citizens.

Pennsylvania and New York were the first states to forbid membership in the society by medical doctors who practiced Homeopathy. State medical society membership and representation in the AMA required that these societies purge themselves of any member Homeopaths.

After 1847, all state societies did this, except Massachusetts. In addition, professional exchange, consultation and even conversation between allopaths and Homeopaths were banned. This ban on interaction between the two groups is a striking example of how a private organization, the AMA, could completely flout the public will, and take punitive action for something that was totally legal.

All this speaks of the restraint of trade. All professions have used laws, licensing, legislation, unions and guilds to protect their own economic interests. Not surprisingly, the suppression of Homeopathy, then and continuing to this very day, is seeped with the same motives.

None of the efforts at abolishing Homeopathy, including state society expulsion, were particularly effective until the turn of this century. Then, it wasn't legislation or licensing that was responsible for the decline of Homeopathy. The infusion of large amounts of money from Carnegie and Rockefeller to the cause of allopathic medicine was instrumental in tipping the scales in its favor. It is ironic that Rockefeller, a beneficiary of Homeopathic treatment himself, should fund its demise. The final shove out the door of popularity was the discovery of antibiotics and the dawning of the age of chemical therapeutics.

By the middle of this century, Homeopathy was all but eliminated. The thousands of practitioners had vanished, the hundred or so medical schools had closed and the vast majority of the general population had never even heard of Homeopathy.

The reemergence of Homeopathy started in the early 1970's as disillusionment with the pharmaceutical approach of medical therapeutics began to surface. Natural foods, exercise, natural living, concern about pollution and chemical toxins in our bodies and the environment began to take center stage. In addition to which, the sterling reputation of technological and pharmacological medicine for invincible prowess and superiority was becoming more and more tarnished. Just as occurred 150 years ago, the public had experienced the side effects, personal cost and problems of allopathic medicine and was voting with their feet.

Now Homeopathy becomes more and more popular each and every year. In the 5 years between 1985 and 1990, the sale of Homeopathic products increased 1000%. Now when I tell the person seated next to me on the plane that I am a doctor who practices Homeopathy, he doesn't mistake that for making house calls.

The vast majority of people prescribing and administering Homeopathy today are in the group of non-licensed lay practitioners. There are thousands of such practitioners and their numbers continue to grow. This small army undoubtedly has an impact on the allopathic medical revenues and public attitudes. Laws and legislation do not now and never have curbed the growth in the ranks of this category of practitioner.

Historically, Homeopathy has always had a large number of non-medical unlicensed people practicing. In the 1800s America's rural culture and lack of clear laws about who could and could not practice medicine created a permissive environment for these non-licensed practitioners. Today, the situation is quite different. Although strong in number, they are all practicing illegally and are at risk for legal problems.

As the twentieth century progressed there has been increasing legislative control of the practice of medicine, both at the state and federal level. State medical societies have been replaced by official government sanctioned state licensing bodies. Although Homeopathy is no longer proscribed by name, review of individual state laws governing the practice of medicine shows that 20 out of 50 states have a clause which distinctly applies to any doctor wishing to practice Homeopathy.

These laws, called the Standard of Practice provisions, declare that each physician must practice up to the standard of care of his community, as the other doctors in the state practice. Although these provisions are promoted as a way of keeping incompetent doctors from practicing, they also are extremely effective in keeping any doctor from practicing differently from the majority. The first doctor in a state to advocate nutrition, exercise, grief counseling, Homeopathy or any other cutting edge idea is, by law, proscripted from doing so. The lone innovator or Homeopath is at risk.

George Guess, a licensed medical doctor practicing Homeopathy in the state of North Carolina discovered this the hard way. The Medical Board of North Carolina took away his medical license in 1985 because he practiced Homeopathy which was not consistent with the standard of care of the medical community. How could it be; he was the only Homeopath in the state. The battle was long and bloody.

Over the 8 years in and out of courts, including the state supreme court and spending in excessive of $150,000, it was concluded that Dr. Guess was a knowledgeable doctor, had not harmed anyone, had the support of his patients and was generally a credit to his profession except, he was not doing what all the other doctors were doing - allopathic medicine. When the favorable decision of the state superior court exonerating Dr. Guess was overturned on appeal, the ACLU agreed to sponsor his case before the US Federal Court.

The highest court refused to hear the case, necessitating Dr. Guess to leave his home and move to another state to practice. While he was gone, North Carolina legislature passed a law allowing for the practice of alternative medicine by doctors. Although the price for this was the devastation and upheaval of Dr. Guess's life and career, at least now one more state had a definite law protecting Homeopaths.

Although few Homeopaths have had or will have the ordeal that Dr. Guess faced, the law provides that they could. The biggest protections now for licensed medical doctors wanting to practice Homeopathy is the public sentiment so favorably disposed to Homeopathy. The verdict in the court of public opinion is definitely not so predisposed to the persecution of alternative therapies as it once was.

Today, the legal standing of Homeopathy and Homeopaths is in limbo. Whereas in all but a few states, the restrictive laws are still on the books yet Homeopathy is thriving and riding high on a tidal wave of popular support. There is definitely an economic impact of all this popularity, yet much of it cannot be measured because the majority of Homeopaths are illegal practitioners whose work is not counted in statistics.

Efforts at restricting the practice of Homeopathy today, as in the last century, have proven almost completely ineffective. People want Homeopathy and for that reason alone, it is here to stay and so is its impact on the economics of medicine.

Reprinted from:
Lew October 3, 2002

More NHS homeopathy, not less | Dr Andrew Sikorski | 24th April 2016 |

The debate about whether homeopathy should be available on the NHS invariably sees the opposing sides citing numerous research papers in support of their argument. Both sides will claim their evidence to be the most reliable, while condemning that of their opponents as seriously flawed. I’m sure for many people this resembles two crusty old academics squabbling over some esoteric philosophical question that has little or no relevance to their lives.

But this debate is important for the public and the health service, for I have experienced how homeopathy can be of huge benefit to patients suffering a wide range of acute and chronic conditions, and can help to reduce the NHS’s ever-spiralling drugs bill.

As a doctor I am highly trained in medical science. From this standpoint I can fully understand the arguments of those who oppose NHS homeopathy, for I once shared their views. That is until I was persuaded by clinical experience how homeopathic medicine can produce a genuine beneficial treatment effect.

Early in my career a colleague had been trying to convince me of the curative possibilities of homeopathy. Although sceptical, I agreed to go along to a number of talks on the subject given by medically trained homeopaths who impressed me with their clinical knowledge and depth of expressed compassion and concern for patient wellbeing. At one of these events I came away with what was described as a homeopathic First Aid kit.

At the time I was working in ENT surgery and late one night I was called to see a patient who had arrived as an emergency with advanced quinsy (peritonsillar abscess), a rare and potentially serious complication of tonsillitis. Saliva steadily dribbled out of his mouth and trismus of his jaw prevented lancing. Both temperature and pulse were raised in a plethoric and toxic patient who had not responded to GP prescribed antibiotics for a week.

Purely by chance I had the homeopathic First Aid kit in the pocket of my white coat. Although my knowledge of homeopathy was limited, I could see that the patient’s presentation indicated the homeopathic medicine Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade). With the consent of the patient and that of his partner I popped a Belladonna pill into his mouth, more out of curiosity than conviction, before setting off to prepare a drip and IV antibiotics.

On returning 10 minutes later, I was astounded to see the patient sipping water and talking freely. His pulse and temperature had reverted to near normal, and on examination there was no quinsy to see, just a superficial mucosal red flush. Such an extraordinary, rapid and complete response was curious to say the least. The clinical team, myself included, all expected a relapse but none occurred.

This experience changed my view of homeopathy. I am now a full-time NHS GP in a group practice with about 9,000 patients and continue to use homeopathy when appropriate. I have found homeopathic medicines to be particularly effective at the extremes of age. Infants respond very rapidly with the correct remedy, while elderly patients with chronic disease or multiple-pathology can receive safe, effective homeopathy alongside usual care, often resulting in a reduction in the amount conventional drugs they are prescribed.

My positive experiences of using homeopathy in general practice are replicated by other GPs who have found it to be an additional and very useful clinical tool. In Europe, where homeopathy is more widely accepted by the medical profession, doctors who integrate the therapy into their practice report lower prescribing costs and fewer hospital referrals. These are the very things the Department of Health is constantly calling on GPs to deliver.

At a time when the health service is under extreme financial pressure, any therapy which doctors see improving the health of patients and is relatively inexpensive, should be being supported and embraced by the NHS rather than investigated.

Entire article and comments can be read HERE

2:08 PM on 18/04/2016 Alan Schmukler

The suggestion that homeopathy is not proven, flies in the face of both research1 and clinical practice. The 100,00 board certified homeopathic physicians who practice in India curing everything from Dengue fever to Leprosy would be surprised to know that they have been using placebos all these years. So would the 42% of British medical doctors who refer their patients to a homeopath, or the 39% of French physicians who prescribe the remedies, the 20% of German physicians who prescribe homeopathic remedies, or the 40% of Dutch doctors who do the same. Critics should be more concerned about regulation of pharmaceutical drugs, which by conservative estimates are the 4th leading cause of death in the U.S. 2 A new study by Charles Seife3 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that the FDA found serious misconduct in almost half of all pharmaceutical drug testing they examined. The study found falsification of documents, lying about adverse events, fabrication of x-rays, discarding of medical records and much more.

Research AND clinical experience has show homeopathy effective for people ( including infants), animals ( many farmers rely on it now), plants and it has also show effects in the test tube. What often passes for critics are surrogates of the pharmaceutical industry which is trying to suppress knowledge of homeopathy. They even do phony research ( totally contrived) to "prove" homeopathy is placebo. In the late 1800's and early 1900's homeopath showed it power against the worst epidemics the world has ever seen. This is all public record. If you hating homeopathy, you've bought the propaganda. It's real, it's safe, it's effective and affordable.


Read more:
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook

DocMalerba Apr 14, 2016 5:59 PM

This article does a decent job of trying to present both sides. The problem is that the anti-homeopathy side is based on false information. There actually is plenty of science and research that points to the activity and benefits of homeopathy. The notion that there is no evidence is pure propaganda. If the same standards were applied to mainstream medicine, much of it would have to be revised. Those standards of scientific medicine permitted, for example, the use of Vioxx. Critics like to argue that the personal experiences of homeopathic patients do not count as evidence. If this were true, then the 55,000 patients who died from cardiac-related problems while taking Vioxx are just irrelevant anecdotes. Homeopathy has both experience and science to back it up. No, there should not be only one choice of medical care sponsored by Medical Big Brother. Yes, all people deserve the freedom to choose.

ChristyRed 4:21 PM on 13/04/2016

The author of this article does not seem to be aware of the fact that homeopathy is based on quantum physics, not chemistry. It is a nano-medicine, an energetic medicine. Conventional drug companies are currently working on ways to use nano-technology to reduce the side effects of their cancer drugs. Homeopaths beat them to it 200 years ago.

Homeopathy is the second most used system of medicine in the world today (conventional medicine is the third most used). The use of homeopathy is growing at annual rates of between 10% and 30% in countries around the world because it's safe, effective -- often curative where conventional treatments fail -- and inexpensive.

Homeopathy is famous for its cures of chronic diseases. People who want to know what it can do for them and their families will find hundreds of contemporary case records of cures of chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, Grave's disease and addiction to prescription drugs by googling "homeopathy cured cases". These records are documented with the results of objective tests like CT scans, x-rays, histo-pathological reports, blood work and more. They include comments by the treating physicians and their patients.

There are 25,000 volumes of cured case records resulting from its use in hundreds of millions of people over the past 200+ years.

Homeopathy is recognized as a medical specialty or system of medicine and/or is covered under national health care programs by the governments of 20 countries including the U.S.A., Switzerland (which is another country now covering it through their national health insurance), India and Brazil. In fact, the U.S.A. and Canada are working with India in the areas of homeopathic education and research.

Read more:
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook

Hardo Bottin 1:58 PM on 13/04/2016

I acknowledge 35 years of teaching conventional science which operates within a paradigm that is governed by rules and laws which do not apply themselves to the science on which Homoeopathy is based. Using slogans and making assumptions out of context is nothing new in the world of science.....the principles on which Homoeopathy is based go beyond the science that Donald Cairns is familiar with and hence any comment he makes is flawed and limited by the narrow margins that govern his limited science.

Homoeopathy is an energetic medicine that goes beyond science as we know it. Anyone who has spent sufficient time to study and apply this model of medicine will soon realize that its efficacy is based on results rather than a kind of science we have been subject to for so long. Being open minded and acknowledging the millions of people that are using this form of medical treatment successfully would be a good start. As Homoeopathy is progressing in it efficacy and usage it will no doubt threaten the established community of orthodox science....hence I am not surprised to see that such great effort is being made to discredit the 2nd most used medical model in the world. When engaging in a topic one would assume that he or she would do so with sufficient knowledge about the topic matter rather than follow in the footsteps of others who also don't know any better. When we consider the fact for example that Chemo therapy only has a 2% success rate overall then we can confidently say Homoeopathy is miles ahead and so is Placebo. There are more than 100000 people dying in the US alone every year from medical treatment and the drugs prescribed by a qualified GP/MD. There are no individuals dying from the use of Homoeopathy but millions who experience improvement in their conditions. "FIRST DO NO HARM" this principle has long been ignored by the medical community. How sad!

Read more:
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook

No comments:

Post a Comment