• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Alternative Medicine: Homeopathy

In all double blind, clinical trials run to a high standard, so far published, homepathic remedies have never performed better than placebo.

Read the chapter on homeopathy in Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - best summation of the whole argument ever.

Homeopathy is bunk - end of story.

A
 
Homeopathy prospers even as controversy rages
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-hom ... rages.html
March 11th, 2011 in Medicine & Health / Medications

A popular homeopathic flu remedy boasts that it comes with no side effects, no drug interactions and won't make you drowsy. But the product also lacks something most people expect to find in their medicine: active ingredients.
Oscillococcinum (O-sill-o-cox-see-num), a tongue-twisting concoction used to treat flulike symptoms, is a staple in many European homes. Sales are steadily growing in the U.S., where it can be found everywhere from storefronts to major retailers.

Homeopathy critics, however, derisively call the product "oh-silly-no-see-um," a reference to the absence of active ingredients. It's products such as Oscillococcinum that have placed homeopathy in an awkward position: popular among holistic-minded consumers but scorned by scientists and most Western-trained doctors.

The British Medical Association vehemently objects to national funding for homeopathy treatment, considering any effect to be placebo. Around the world, activists have staged mass public "overdose" events outside pharmacies to demonstrate there's literally nothing inside the small white pills. One U.S. group, meanwhile, has offered $1 million to anyone who can prove homeopathy works and has challenged major drug retailers such as CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens to stop selling the products.

"Nobody, not even homeopaths have an idea how the remedies work," said Dr. Edzard Ernst, a longtime critic of homeopathy and professor of Complementary Medicine at Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter in the U.K.
Few things rile scientific skeptics more than homeopathy, a baffling form of alternative medicine in which patients are given highly diluted and vigorously shaken preparations to trigger the body's natural healing ability. Though it has been used for centuries and some studies have reported positive findings, the practice has no known scientific basis. Most analyses have concluded there's no evidence it works any better than a sugar pill.

Yet homeopathy hasn't just survived the years of scathing criticism; it's prospering. In the U.S., consumer sales of homeopathic treatments reached $870 million in 2009, growing 10 percent over the previous year, according to Nutrition Business Journal estimates.

For Oscillococcinum, sold in 60 countries, estimated annual retail sales in the U.S. are more than $20 million, according to the manufacturer, Boiron. It ranks 49th out of 318 cold and flu brand products that do more than $1 million in sales. Other popular homeopathic products include arnica gel for bruises and strains and diluted zinc remedies for colds.

"Some people feel these products shouldn't work due to the dilution level," said pharmacist Christophe Merville, director of education and pharmacy development for Boiron, the world's leading manufacturer of homeopathic medicines. But he said basic science studies have shown "that highly diluted solutions have biological properties that are different than water."

Ernst, who calls homeopathy the "worst example of faith-based medicine," said that even if the solution is structurally different, it doesn't matter. "After doing my washing up, the water in my sink is very different from pure water," he said. "Yet it would be silly to claim it had therapeutic effects."

Homeopathy is one of the most polarizing forms of complementary and alternative medicine in part because it's based on principles that defy the laws of chemistry and physics. One pillar is the assumption that "like cures like." Chopping a red onion, for example, can make your eyes tear and nose run. Seasonal rhinitis can trigger the same symptoms, so a homeopathic treatment derived from a red onion - Allium cepa - may be a possible remedy.

The second assumption proposes that diluting and violently shaking (or "succussing") the remedies makes them more effective, even if - and this is the part most scientists find hard to swallow - the final preparation no longer contains a single molecule of the original ingredient. The final product usually is a tiny ball of sugar the patient swallows, though homeopathic products also are sold as gels.

The mechanism behind the diluting and shaking remains a mystery. Some say homeopathic medicine may stimulate the body's natural defenses; others suggest homeopathic medicine retains a "memory" of the original substance in the water and the effect is due to nanoparticles.

Regardless, proponents say it shouldn't be discounted simply because it can't be explained. For years, no one knew how aspirin worked. And scientists still don't fully understand the mechanism behind a conventional drug such as Ritalin, argued Dr. Tim Fior, director of the Center for Integral Health in Lombard.

"Homeopathy challenges the belief in the molecular paradigm of medicines," said Fior, who on Wednesday will deliver an introductory lecture on homeopathy to medical students at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "Conventional pharmacology is based on - and profits immensely from - the idea that you can synthesize a molecule, patent it and produce it in bulk and then have a monopoly selling it. Homeopathic medicines are so dilute that they work more according to a biophysical or energetic paradigm."

People often use homeopathy to treat chronic pain, digestive issues, colds, influenza and allergies when they're not getting relief from conventional medicine. Homeopathic practitioners tend to spend more time with patients than regular doctors. The products also appeal to those looking for a "natural" or holistic product or who can't tolerate the side effects of conventional drugs.

Mona Grayson, 35, of Warrenville, Ill., turned to homeopathy for chronic digestive issues after her insurance expired and she could no longer cover the cost of her conventional treatment: $4,000 every eight weeks. Though she was tolerating her pricey medication, she had concerns about the long-term effects.

After an initial two-hour consultation with Fior, Grayson was given a remedy of phosphorus; she said she hasn't had problems since. "What matters to me is that I feel good," said Grayson, a raw food chef and happiness coach.
But does homeopathy provide anything beyond a placebo effect? Overall, many of the studies are small, of poor quality and funded by homeopathic manufacturers.

Dr. Iris Bell of the University of Arizona, one of the few homeopathy researchers to get federal funding, said the highest quality trials - double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies - have had both negative and positive results. Her own work on fibromyalgia has shown individualized homeopathy did work better than the placebo.

Researchers also have shown that arthritis patients significantly benefited when they received homeopathy in conjunction with conventional treatment over six months. But the study, published in the journal Rheumatology, found the improvement was due to homeopathy's consultation process rather than its remedies.

"It has been a big problem bringing science to homeopathy," said Dr. Josephine Briggs, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. With only a few exceptions, the center, a federal agency, hasn't funded any studies on homeopathy in the past five years. "On the other hand, the historical tradition has some real insights to treating humans in an individualized way," said Briggs, who said it might be appropriate to study the doctor-patient interaction.

At Merz Apothecary in Chicago, one of the largest homeopathic pharmacies in the country, president and co-owner Anthony Qaiyum summed up the thoughts of many homeopathic supporters. "Ultimately, who gives a damn whether it's scientifically proven if it works?" he said. "There are very valid questions about how it works, but whether it's my mind or the product, it's working and it's working without side effects."

Others see homeopathy as a safe way to complement treatment choices. "We don't always know why things work, but sometimes they do," said Freeport podiatrist Roland Tolliver, who uses it with his children and occasionally recommends arnica for patients with musculoskeletal issues.
"Regular medicine doesn't always work either," he said. "The most important thing is to leave all options open."

Critics say there's a risk in perpetuating the notion that homeopathy is equivalent to modern medicine, in part because people may forgo or delay conventional treatment. Moreover, it's unethical for pharmacists to prescribe placebos, said W. Steven Pray, a professor of pharmacy at Southwestern Oklahoma State University.

"You don't need placebos to generate placebo effects," Ernst has written. "Furthermore, if we allow the homoeopathic industry to sell placebos, we must do the same for Big Pharma. Imagine a world in which pharmaceutical companies could sell us placebos for all sorts of conditions just because some patients experience benefits through a placebo response."
Click to expand...
 
ramonmercado said:
Imagine a world in which pharmaceutical companies could sell us placebos for all sorts of conditions just because some patients experience benefits through a placebo response."
Click to expand...

There is some kind of logical knot in the above sentence ...
Is it only me who does *not* see the terrible horror of the situation as described above? Why not exploit and optimize the placebo effect professionally :D

Note: I also think homeopathy is bunk. Here in the Netherlands a group of doctors is planning on taking a "deadly overdose of homeopathic medicines" to demonstrate it does not do anything 8)
 
uair01 said:
Here in the Netherlands a group of doctors is planning on taking a "deadly overdose of homeopathic medicines" to demonstrate it does not do anything 8)
Click to expand...
That'd be 'none', then ...
 
What puzzles me is that i saw a documentary where a vet treated a horse with a homeopathic remedy. I find it difficult to believe a horse would react to a placebo.

If there isn't anything in it, why is homeopathy so popular among some vets?


http://www.bahvs.com/
 
You can edit anything to make it look as you like... maybe the vet was in cahoots with the lying basta...er, I mean homeopathy companies. Maybe, as has been suggested on here, horses react to placebos when administered by someone they've come to associate making them better.
 
Half of Germany's doctors prescribe placebos
13 March 2011

PRESCRIPTIONS of placebos are booming in Germany and Switzerland, reveals a report released last week by the German Medical Association (GMA).

For example, 53 per cent of the doctors from the Medical University of Hannover said they would prescribe placebos such as vitamin pills and homeopathic remedies. Half the doctors in a national Swiss survey agreed.

Their use of such treatments contrasts with the UK, where homeopathic treatments have been rejected by scientists. However, "physicians should be made aware of the value of the placebo effect in the daily treatment of patients", says Christoph Fuchs, chief executive of the GMA. "Their use is of enormous importance for medical practice." The report cautions that placebos should be prescribed only for very minor conditions or where traditional therapies are not available.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... cebos.html

My ruddy doctors wouldn't even prescribe a placebo for my dud ear - presumably because I would notice they didn't work! :twisted:
 
I don't remember if I said this here already, but I remember someone telling they read the queen has a personal homeopath.
 
Perhaps. And Nancy Reagan had a personal astrologer. It's still bollocks, though. :D
 
Homeopathy Is 'dangerous And Wasteful' Says Abertay Expert
10 May 2011

A bioethics expert from the University of Abertay Dundee has denounced the public funding of homeopathy at a time where Scotland's health budget is under unprecedented pressure. Speaking in the esteemed journal 'Bioethics', Dr Kevin Smith says that Homeopathy is 'ethically unacceptable' and should be 'actively rejected' by healthcare and education providers.

Despite heavy criticism from the medical community including the British Medical Association, homeopathic treatments continue to be available on the NHS. Last year a BBC programme, 'Magic or Medicine Homeopathy and the NHS' reported that the NHS in Scotland spent around £1.5m per year on homeopathy almost a third of the estimated £4m spent each year in the UK. Scottish GPs were found to be prescribing 10 times as many homeopathic medicines per patient as their English counterparts.

Dr Smith said "The NHS in Scotland is spending far more per person on homeopathic treatments than in the rest of the UK and now in particular, in times where finances are stretched to breaking point and funding for vital services is at risk, this is incredible."

Dr Smith argues that in addition wasting valuable resources, government funding gives credibility to homeopathy, which puts patients at risk. "NHS funding for homeopathy legitimises it and suggests a scientific basis, the risk is then that people will avoid effective medicine, potentially damaging their health. The same applies to education providers running homeopathy courses." he said.

Supporters of homeopathy argue that if the patient feels a placebo effect then there is still benefit to the patient. Dr Smith refutes this saying "If placebo effect is the only form of benefit, then you're effectively lying to the patient and going against a core principle of medical ethics that patients must have all the information available to give fully informed consent."

Dr Smith's article comes as the axe continues to hang over Scotland's only homeopathic hospital Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. Future funding has not been confirmed and NHS Highland has already announced that it will no longer be commissioning services from the facility.

"Homeopathy is utterly implausible. Homeopathic preparations are so thoroughly diluted that they contain no significant amounts of active ingredients, and thus can have no effects on the patient's body. So it is hardly unsurprising that, despite a large number of studies having been conducted, there's no convincing evidence to support claims of effectiveness for homeopathy. Those who believe it works either do not understand the science, or are simply deluded. It is important to realise that homeopathy is not ethically neutral; it is wasteful and potentially dangerous, and conflicts with fundamental ethical principles. I argue that those involved with healthcare have a moral duty to take an active stance against homeopathy. For example, those responsible for healthcare funding should act to ensure that scare NHS resources are not allocated to the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. Indeed, the closure of this facility would be welcome on ethical grounds."

Sources: Abertay Dundee University, AlphaGalileo Foundation.

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/224678.php
Click to expand...
 
Any open-minded physician will tell you they've seen homeopathy work. The fact we can't currently explain why doesn't alter that. Even if it's nothing but placebo, so what? If it works it works.

The idea there is some big staring gap between 'real' medicine done by people like me in scrubs or white coats and 'fake' medicine done by flaky 'others' is at best a simplification and at worst a construct of the fake 'rationalism' that is quite trendy right now and that tries to police everything that doesn't conform to its often narrow and absurd notion of the 'real'. In truth several of these 'fake' treatments have been shown to work at least as well as their conventional counterparts and frequently have far fewer side effects. And it's also horribly true that we routinely use many conventional therapies that have been shown to be of little or no benefit in all trials. We continue using them out of habit or inertia, or because the drug companies have good advertizing (yes, really). So the idea of cool science prevailing one on side and loony witchdoctors brewing up crazy potions on the other is just not true.

And don't get me started on iatrogenic morbidity and mortality! If lay people only knew we actually expect a certain number of our patients to die as a result of their treatment and will only take a medication off the approved register if it kills more than an 'acceptable' number, then they might be a little less willing to trust the white coat.

Basically, if you have a non-emergency condition then giving homeopathy a go before opting for a drug that might bring a lot of other side effects with it is probably pretty sensible, and is at least harmless. Worst it can do is not work. Worst one of our little pills can do? take a close look at the side-effects listed on even the most benign of medications!
 
If it works it works. But should practitioners be allowed to make unverifiable claims regarding it? Theres a lot of stuff on this thread to digest.
 
Prince Charles branded a 'snake oil salesman' by scientist
Edzard Ernst, who was Britain's first professor of complementary medicine, said the prince's support for homeopathy and other alternative medicines earns him the title
Ian Sample, science correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 July 2011 18.05 BST

Britain's leading alternative medicine researcher has reignited a public row with Clarence House by branding the Prince of Wales a "snake oil salesman".
Professor Edzard Ernst criticised the heir to the throne for lending his support to homeopathic remedies and for promoting the Duchy Herbals detox tincture.

In a briefing with reporters at the Science Media Centre in London, Ernst warned that "snake oil salesmen are ubiquitous and dangerous", and named the prince as "one of the most outspoken proponents of homeopathy".
He later told the Guardian: "There are no official criteria for a snake oil salesman, but if they existed, I think Charles would fulfil them."

Ernst, who was Britain's first professor of complementary medicine, agreed recently to retire early from Exeter University, where he presided for 18 years over a unit that subjects alternative medicines to thorough scientific scrutiny.
Many of Ernst's studies have been damning for complementary medicines, with some proving no more effective than sugar pills. Other treatments, such as chiropractic spine manipulation, were potentially dangerous, he has said.

In a briefing that coincided with his stepping down, Ernst blamed earlier confrontations with Clarence House for the threatened closure of his department and his early exit as head of the unit.
The most serious clash came in 2005 when Ernst attacked a report commissioned by the prince into the economics of complementary medicine. Ernst was due to help prepare the report, but asked for his name to be removed after questioning its validity.

The report, led by Christopher Smallwood, a former economics adviser to Barclays Bank, claimed the UK could save billions by offering spinal manipulation such as chiropractic in place of mainstream treatments, and make further savings by prescribing homeopathy instead of standard drugs. Ernst described the report as "outrageous and deeply flawed" days before it was published.

The comments prompted a complaint from Sir Michael Peat, chairman of the Prince's now defunct Foundation for Integrated Health, to the vice-chancellor of Exeter University. The university responded with a 13-month investigation, which cleared Ernst of any wrongdoing, though he was later told that his unit would close in 2010.

While Ernst will still take early retirement, the department will remain open under plans drawn up by Professor Steve Thornton, who took over as Dean at Exeter in May. The university plans to advertise for a replacement for Ernst next week.

"The whole thing would backfire in my view tremendously if we found a promoter of alternative medicine and not a good scientist," Ernst said, adding: "It looked as though I had to go and that was the price for the unit to continue."

Clarence House said it would not respond to Ernst's latest comments, and added that the prince was unaware of Sir Michael's complaint in 2005.

A spokeswoman for Waitrose, which has exclusive rights to sell the Prince's Duchy products, said only that the Duchy Herbals range "complies to all the regulatory standards".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... l-salesman
 
Any open-minded physician will tell you they've seen voodoo work. The fact we can't currently explain why doesn't alter that. Even if it's nothing but placebo, so what? If it works it works.

The idea there is some big staring gap between 'real' medicine done by people like me in scrubs or white coats and 'fake' medicine done by flaky 'others' is at best a simplification and at worst a construct of the fake 'rationalism' that is quite trendy right now and that tries to police everything that doesn't conform to its often narrow and absurd notion of the 'real'. In truth several of these 'fake' treatments have been shown to work at least as well as their conventional counterparts and frequently have far fewer side effects. And it's also horribly true that we routinely use many conventional therapies that have been shown to be of little or no benefit in all trials. We continue using them out of habit or inertia, or because the drug companies have good advertizing (yes, really). So the idea of cool science prevailing one on side and loony witchdoctors brewing up crazy potions on the other is just not true.

And don't get me started on iatrogenic morbidity and mortality! If lay people only knew we actually expect a certain number of our patients to die as a result of their treatment and will only take a medication off the approved register if it kills more than an 'acceptable' number, then they might be a little less willing to trust the white coat.

Basically, if you have a non-emergency condition then giving voodoo a go before opting for a drug that might bring a lot of other side effects with it is probably pretty sensible, and is at least harmless. Worst it can do is not work. Worst one of our little pills can do? take a close look at the side-effects listed on even the most benign of medications!
Click to expand...

You are so very, very wrong. And in your position, dangerously wrong.
 
AngelAlice said:
Any open-minded physician will tell you they've seen homeopathy work. The fact we can't currently explain why doesn't alter that. Even if it's nothing but placebo, so what? If it works it works.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether a somewhat expensive placebo is paid for by public healthcare funding. If it is just plaebo, then homeopathy should be ignored and placebos should just be used instead. Otherwise, it would go some way in validating the claims of homeopathy, which may be on dodgy ground.
 
Jerry_B said:
AngelAlice said:
Any open-minded physician will tell you they've seen homeopathy work. The fact we can't currently explain why doesn't alter that. Even if it's nothing but placebo, so what? If it works it works.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether a somewhat expensive placebo is paid for by public healthcare funding. If it is just plaebo, then homeopathy should be ignored and placebos should just be used instead. Otherwise, it would go some way in validating the claims of homeopathy, which may be on dodgy ground.
Click to expand...

Actually, they shouldn't waste real expensive placebos but dilute them. I'm sure that heavily-diluted placebos would have the same effect as real placebos but at a fraction of the cost of the real placebo which has been proven to cure medical complaints in a number of patients.
 
jimv1 said:
Actually, they shouldn't waste real expensive placebos but dilute them. I'm sure that heavily-diluted placebos would have the same effect as real placebos but at a fraction of the cost of the real placebo which has been proven to cure medical complaints in a number of patients.
Click to expand...
Aaaargh!!! Now I know I'm trapped in an infinite regress in a computer simulation! :shock:
 
As soon as someone mentions Hitler, you can skip through to the exit.

It's a bit like the hidden dimension jumps used by the staff working their way through the departments of Ikea.
 
Homeopathy on the NHS is 'mad' says outgoing scientific adviser
The use of homoeopathy by the NHS has been described as “mad” by a former government scientific adviser who retired from his post last week.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
9:00PM BST 09 Apr 2013

Professor Sir John Beddington criticised the Government for ignoring his advice against the use of homoeopathic remedies by GPs and NHS run hospitals.
Sir John, who retired as chief scientific adviser to the Government on April 1, expressed frustration that ministers had continued to allow taxpayers money to be used to fund such treatments despite them having “no scientific basis”.

Homeopathy, which uses highly diluted extracts from plants, herbs and minerals to treat diseases, costs the NHS between £4 million and £12 million a year.
The Prince of Wales is among the advocates of homoeopathy while Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary is also known to be a supporter, but it has been widely debunked by the medical community.

Sir John said the provision of homoeopathic remedies on the NHS was the only occasion during his five years as chief scientific adviser that his views had been “fundamentally ignored” by the Government.
“In fact all of the science points to the fact that it is not at all sensible.
“The clear evidence is saying this is wrong, but homoeopathy is still used on the NHS.”

Homeopathy is based on the idea that illnesses can be treated by substances that produce similar symptoms.
For example, sleeplessness could be treated by diluted doses of coffee because when drunk in normal amounts it can keep people awake.
In some cases it is claimed to be able to treat serious illnesses including cancer.

The scientific consensus, however, is that homoeopathic treatments only work through the placebo effect, where patients experience an improvement in their condition despite not being given any active ingredient or medical treatment.
The British Medical Association has described homoeopathy as “witchcraft” while earlier this year Professor Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical office, described it as “rubbish”.
The Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee also concluded in 2010 that the "Government should stop allowing the funding of homoeopathy on the NHS".

There are currently three homoeopathic hospitals run by the NHS in the UK – one each in Bristol, London and Glasgow.
An appointment with a homeopath and a course of homoeopathic pills are estimated to cost around £140 per patient.
Although the NHS does not publish how much is spent on homoeopathy, it spent £121,000 on homoeopathic prescriptions in 2010.
The British Homoeopathic Association says £4 million of public money is spent each year, although it has been claimed that the figure could be as much as £12 million a year.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "The Department of Health does not maintain a position on any particular complementary or alternative therapy including homoeopathy.
"It is the responsibility of local NHS organisations to make decisions on the commissioning and funding of any health care treatments for NHS patients, such as homoeopathy.
"This should take account of issues to do with safety, clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness and the availability of suitably qualified and regulated practitioners."

Dr Sara Eames, president of the Faculty of Homeopathy, insisted that homoeopathy gave positive results to patients.
She said: "Professor Beddington fails to mention that many more randomised clinical trials in homoeopathy have produced positive results than negative.
"Instead of dismissing homoeopathy, surely it would be far more sensible to carry out research into why doctors and other health care professionals trained in homoeopathy and working within the NHS, regularly see such positive patient outcomes following homoeopathic treatment."

Sir John also warned that in some cases excessive regulations that used a precautionary approach to risk were creating problems.
He said that European rulings that used this approach, such as banning plastic bottles containing the chemical Bisphenol A in 2010 and the more recent attempt to ban pesticides thought to kill honey bees, risked doing more harm than good.
He said the Icelandic volcano eruption that threw ash into the atmosphere and resulted in thousands of flights being cancelled for over a week, was a good example of this.

He said: “This is other thing that worries me – and you can see an example in the volcanic ash where the problems were actually caused by regulation.
“The regulations said that if there was ash in the air at any concentration you did not fly. It’s crazy. It depends how long you fly through it, what the concentration is.

“There are a whole series of regulations affecting us and we need to be thinking about it.
“There is a real danger of what is happening in the EU in general is an over use of the precautionary principal.
“The banning of Bisphenol A in baby bottles is another example of this. To be frank, the only way you can harm babies with Bisphenol A bottles is to beat them over the head with them.

“With the bans on agrochemicals, they are taking a hazard based approach and introducing regulations that say stop using them. I think this is the over use and illegitimate use of the precautionary principal.
“It is a fine line and needs some debate.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... viser.html
 
Even if it's a placebo effect, but has a positive effect. The whole placebo aspect is a fascinating one, to me. It's evidence of the minds ability to heal the body, surely?
 
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but why are people comparing Bachs rescue remedy and homeopathy? Bachs Rescue Remedy is a herbal concoction. It has stuff in it other than water. Has there been some thread merging?
The spray has alcohol in it, to start with. That will destress anyone!
 
I briefly went out with a qualified homoeopathic practitioner. She was quite open to the idea that the main, or even the whole effect was placebo, but as she said, if the patient gets well what's the diff?

She wanted the homoeopathic practitioners to be part of the normal health service whether private or public because it helps with the problem of patients stopping the normal treatment for their ailment.
 
A recent headline in medical newsletters stating 'Pharmacists reluctant to give up on homeopathy' misrepresents the public position of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, the peak professional organisation representing pharmacists across Australia.

The newsletter reports made no reference to the publicly stated position of the Society following the release last week of a review by the National Health and Medical Research Council which found there were no health conditions for which there was reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.

National President of the PSA, Grant Kardachi, said PSA welcomed the release of the review which clearly highlighted the need for pharmacists to advise consumers of the dangers of choosing homeopathy over evidence-based medicine.

"On release of this report we stated clearly and publicly that we are of the view consumers may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness," Mr Kardachi said.

"The NHMRC report underscores the need for consumers to consult their pharmacists when seeking appropriate treatments for their conditions. ...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/290942.php
 
I'm not entirely happy about this concept..
Orajel-Baby-Orajel-Naturals-Teething-Relief-Fruit-310310323721.jpg


If it's been subjected to scientific tests, in terms of effectiveness and safety, then it's not conventionally homeopathic. So whilst being free of benzocaine/belladonna/dye and parabens, it absolutely is intended to work. And to be better than nothing. Also, not worse than something that doesn't work.

I seriously don't understand hard-core homeopathy. Faith-based medicine can make no sense: results-based safe medicine is....medicine.

Would a homeopath please convince me I'm talking rubbish. Thanks in advance.
 
Does homeopathy "fly in the face of science" or is it "the most misunderstood of all the major forms of complementary medicine?" Two doctors - one for and one against homeopathy - argue in The BMJ whether it should be recommended to patients.

The two UK doctors are Dr. Peter Fisher, director of research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine in London and Prof. Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor at the University of Exeter.

Prof. Ernst says most reviews of the randomized controlled trial evidence have "failed to show that homeopathy is effective." Any systematic reviews with positive conclusions "usually have serious methodological flaws."

But Dr. Fisher questions the methods used to review the evidence for homeopathy - citing as an example a recent report by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council stating "there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective." He argues that the review omitted several key pieces of evidence, adding:

"The fact that one homeopathic treatment for a condition is ineffective doesn't mean that another is also ineffective."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/296758.php
 
Here's my take on Homeopathy.

If I take a substance, dissolve it (tritrate) it to 10 parts in a million, then take that pillule, it rationally should have no effect on me.

BUT.



If I eat some ground nuts (peanuts), wash my hands afterwards, but later open a door with that hand, any person with an intense allergy to ground nuts who uses that doorknob can go rapidly into anaphylactic shock.


It is known also that partners who have eaten peanuts many hours beforehand, washed their mouths, brushed their teeth, then kissed their partner can cause an allergic reaction.


"Officially, the United States Food and Drug Administration does recognize eight foods as being common for allergic reactions in a large segment of the sensitive population. These include peanuts, tree nuts, eggs, milk, shellfish, fish, wheat and their derivatives, and soy and their derivatives, as well as sulfites (chemical based, often found in flavors and colors in foods) at 10ppm and over."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergen


We are talking of items on a molecular level, in both cases (allergenic and homeopathic).


I say then, that the mechanics of homeopathy, can produce marked physiological changes in some cellular bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top