Homeopathy urgently condemned for serious diseases
More important, desperately-needed work from Sense About Science. The groundless, pseudo-scientific claims of homeopathy are now pushing towards creating a possible public heath disaster. For an honest appraisal of homeopathy, and what testing has shown, look here. And for SAS’s excellent PDF entitled I’ve got nothing to lose by trying it – Weighing up claims about cures and treatments for long-term conditions, go here.
Again, we are reminded of the lucid, simple point that a medicine works or it doesn’t. It can’t be shown to not work but somehow still be said to ‘work’ in some ‘alternative’ sense. Here is the press release, sent to me yesterday:
Young medics call on WHO to condemn homeopathy promotion for HIV, TB, malaria, influenza and infant diarrhoea
In a letter to the World Health Organisation today, early career medics and researchers are calling for the body to issue a clear international communication about the inappropriate use of homeopathy for five serious diseases. They say they are frustrated with the continued promotion of homeopathy as a preventative or treatment for HIV, TB, malaria, influenza and infant diarrhoea. The Voice of Young Science network has joined with other early career medics and researchers working in developing countries to send the letter, in advance of a ‘Homeopathy for Developing Countries’ conference in the Netherlands on 6th June.
The letter:
Leading experts in malaria, HIV and other serious diseases affecting the developing world are supporting the young medics’ and researchers’ call for the WHO to take action.
See comments below.
COMMENTS FROM EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS:
Juliet Stevens, Medical Student, University of Oxford (on placement at Somerset State Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa): “Despite awareness in Britain of the medical burden in South Africa, little can prepare you for seeing this first hand. On the Paediatric wards infants are diagnosed with stage 3 HIV/AIDS on a daily basis, and TB meningitis is rife. The minimal cost of state healthcare is prohibitive for some, and denial regarding HIV diagnoses is still common, making the population here a vulnerable target for unproven therapies.â€
Tom Wells, PhD student, Department of Chemistry, Imperial College London:
“Treatments, developed through rigorous, clinical testing are powerful tools with which to save lives. To undermine their application by promoting alternatives, without evidence of efficacy, is irresponsible and dangerous. All people suffering with TB, malaria, influenza and the ravages of HIV deserve proven treatments, not false hope.â€
Dr Daniella Muallem, Postdoctoral researcher, Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, UCL: “When medicines exist which have been proven to be highly effective at treating life threatening diseases such as HIV and malaria I believe it is highly unethical to advocate treatments for which there is no good evidence as an alternative for poor people.”
Evelyn Harvey, Biochemist and Medical Writer: “The aggressive stance some homeopathic practitioners take towards life-saving drugs for HIV, TB, malaria and other diseases that ravage the developing world is irresponsible, patronising and unnecessary. We should not deny people in developing countries access to the full facts and to high-quality scientific evidence.â€
Duncan Casey, PhD student, Department of Chemistry, Imperial College London: “This isn’t the difference between two schools of medicine; this is like comparing a 747 to a magic carpet. The magic carpet is a lovely idea – but at the end of the day, which would you rather trust with your life?â€
COMMENTS FROM SENIOR SCIENTISTS AND MEDICS:
Dr Peter Flegg MD, FRCP, DTM&H, Consultant Physician, Department of Infectious Diseases, Victoria Hospital: “As a physician who has had first hand experience of the devastating effects of these life-threatening infections in Africa, I am frankly appalled that anyone would consider treating them with totally irrational, ineffective and unproven therapies. These infections all have effective conventional treatments available, and to use homeopathy for them is highly unethical and morally repugnant.â€
Professor Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester: “The catastrophic consequences of promoting irrational and ineffective treatments for serious illnesses have been demonstrated in South Africa, where Thabo Mbeki’s policies have led to an estimated 365,000 unnecessary premature deaths. The prospect of replicating this reckless behaviour elsewhere in developing countries by advocating homoeopathic treatments for AIDs and other potentially lethal conditions is appalling. I hope that the timely intervention by the Voice of Young Science Network will help to pre-empt a public health disaster. It illustrates the importance of young scientists, torchbearers for a better future, taking a stand and speaking out.â€
Dr Alastair Miller MA FRCP DTM&H, Consultant Physician, Tropical & Infectious Disease Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital: “We frequently see patients in our unit from developing countries who have been advised to take inappropriate and unproven therapies for their HIV and not to take the very well established and effective anti viral agents. This leads to tragic and inevitable breakdown of the immune system and very adverse outcomes for our patientsâ€
Dr NJ Beeching, Senior Lecturer and Clinical Lead in Infectious Diseases, Tropical and Infectious Disease Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital: “Infections such as malaria, HIV and tuberculosis all have a high mortality rate but can usually be controlled or cured by a variety of proven treatments, for which there is ample experience and scientific trial data. There is no objective evidence that homeopathy has any effect on these infections, and I think it is irresponsible for a health care worker to promote the use of homeopathy in place of proven treatment for any life-threatening illness. New treatments, whether conventional or homeopathic, should not replace current therapy unless they have been shown to be at least as effective in carefully monitored clinical trials.”
Dr David Misselbrook MSc MA FRCGP, Dean, Royal Society of Medicine: “I offer my personal support to the stand taken by Sense about Science and the Voice of Young Science in their letter to the WHO expressing their concern about the use of homeopathy to treat serious disease in the developing world.
Homeopathy is valued by patients in wealthy countries as a complementary therapy that may help them to feel better during periods of illness. However there is no good quality scientific evidence that homeopathy is effective against serious diseases such as TB, malaria or AIDS. It seems quite wrong to encourage Western complementary therapies in the developing world when they stand in such acute need of the basics that we take for granted such as clean water, sanitation and access to proven medical treatments for serious disease.â€
Professor Tom Welton FRSC, Professor in Sustainable Chemistry, Head of the Department of Chemistry, Member of advisory panel for the Pan African Chemistry Network: “It is with shock that I read that homeopathy is being proposed as an alternative to scientifically proven treatments for life-threatening diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Homeopathy proposes that diseases can be cured by tinctures that contain no active ingredient. There is, of course, no systematic evidence that shows that these work. To propose that a therapy for which there is no evidence for its efficacy as a substitute for treatments that have been shown to work is reckless and frankly wicked. If this is not prevented, lives will be lost.
I remember the days before the introduction of antiviral therapies for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, when the only hope that my sick friends had to cling to was treatments such as homeopathy. They died in appalling numbers. The advent of effective anti-viral drugs has turned this situation around completely and I have not lost another friend since. It is imperative that these drugs are made available to all who can benefit from their use, not that they are replaced with so-called treatments that don’t work.â€
Professor Nicholas White OBR FRS, Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford; Chair, Wellcome Trust SE Asian Units and of the WHO Antimalarial Treatment Guidelines Committee:“We still rely heavily on natural products for the treatment of malaria (Cinchona alkaloids, artemisinin derivatives), but we use quality assured products at doses shown conclusively to be effective. Malaria is a potentially lethal infection. Treating with inadequate doses or ineffective products diverts the patient from receiving effective medicines and may result in their death.â€
Dr Ron Behrens, Director, Hospital for Tropical Diseases: “I would strongly support this letter. There is an important role for anti-malarial compounds extracted from local plants for the treatment of malaria, which are being, and have been identified through careful research in a number of developing countries. However their clinical use should follow the same rigorous scientific evaluation and testing as all drugs for humans.â€
Professor JM Ryan, Emeritus Professor of Conflict Recovery, St George’s Hospital University of London: “Those who practice conventional medicine live in a world constrained by the need to consider best evidence when recommending therapies and this is absolutely the correct approach.â€
For further Information please contact Julia Wilson at Sense About Science on 020 7478 4380 orjwilson@senseaboutscience.org.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of Homeopathic “medicine”. I continually feel embarrassed that in this supposed age of enlightenment and science, we are still letting people sell snake oil to the sick.
I really do home the WHO can put a nail in the coffin of this shameful industry.
Paul B
Brilliant! Alternative medicines are getting out of control.
I similarly seek the end of this homeopathic rubbish. Nonsense it is and nonsense it should be exposed to be. There is nothing but anecdotal evidence to show that it works whereas before even being able to sell a drug the medical community must prove it’s effectiveness.
I fear there is a wider issue is afoot with my general feeling that science is ‘misunderstood’ information that the populace merely ignores as ‘government nannying’ and the only real front page science stories are the negative ones. The GCSE science course seeks to remedy this but at the reduction in the depth of science taught in schools.
This is a huge issue but I, for 1, am on board with exposing the pseudo-scientists and fakers seeking nothing but ‘money for nothing.’
Let me put my views like this – if I sell a gig ‘ticket’ on eBay and write in tiny print on the bottom that the ticket does not guarantee entry to the advertised gig, I’d be arrested for fraud. Homeopathy seems to promise a cure or treatment with no such caveat.
i agree with paul, thanks for posting derren. x
My mother died of cancer after listening to homeopathists who had her believe that “normal” cancer treatments — chemotherapy etc — were crude and unneccesary. (True story.)
There is no doubt in my mind that this has happened to many others. Time to get rid of homeopathy once and for all…
I think part of the problem is that people genuinely believe these treatments work, especially the people that endorse them. It is how people look at ‘evidence’. If they see one occasion when pharmaceuticals failed, and homeopathy worked, then that is enough for them. And if, on some other coincidence, they experience some other example of outright luck, they go on to endorse these treatments as well.
It’s the human mind’s ability to ignore the obvious, and focus on the unlikely. A bit like conspiracy theories really.
I agree, It’s all very well for imotional support & counciling type talking. At least it’s an hours worth of someone listening to u. But I went for months to Homeopathy for M.E. & when I came round to being talked into goin to the Priory for help with depression I was strongly ‘begged’ not to go & especially not to accept medication. Fortuenatly I went, was given medication & am now back to normal (whatever that is), thank god I was persuaded to change by my loved ones.
What are you people frightened of? That it may work? I cannot believe in this day and age that people are frightened of what they obviously DON’T understand -I am a Homeopath, I have nothing to fear – and as anurse of 30years standing I would never suggest anyone with Cancer or any other disease should NOT also seek conventional treatment- IT IS THE PATIENTS AUTONOMOUS RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!!. Homeopathy was part of the NHS since the 1940’s and still should be so. The idea of anything ‘complementary’ is that it can be an aid to other things and Homeopathy is truly that -as a medicine in its own right or as an adjunct to conventional medicine! The big pharmacy companies are terrified of what they will loose if people choose other than conventional medicine – if any one looks to anything that may take money out of thier pockets. As for proof -let the history of the pharmacology trials show you proof of how well they work -if they ever dared to publish some of the REAL research that is behind many of the problems -look up side effects of Statins etc.
The whole idea of homeopathic treatments fascinates me and I’d jump to support them if they were proven to work in trials similar to what conventional drugs go through. Until that happens, though (if ever), I’m very firmly in the science-backed crowd.
For those who missed the interesting , “You ask, they answer” on The Guardians website. Neils Yard offered to answer public questions about homeopathy.
I get the feeling that they didn’t fully understand what they were letting themselves in for 🙂 The questions were everything you would expect and the responses……well, not too reassuring to say the least.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/may/26/you-ask-neals-yard-remedies
While the patient has an autonomous right to choose what treatment is best for them, western medicine is evidence based and presented to the patient as such, while Homeopathy has scant evidence suggesting it is any more effect than the placebo effect but claims it is. The real issue arises when people reject evidence based medicine in favour for the more glamourous, but less realistic, claims made by some homeopatic practitioners. The exaggerated (and sometimes fictitious) claims made by some homeopathic practitioners thus underride the patients autonomy.
Patricia, the burden of proof is on you homoeopaths. Prove that it works in a clinical trial. What action does homoeopathy have on the HI Virus? What does it do? Specifics please. Homoeopaths have gone on for too long discussing vague notions of “like healing like” – tell us what happens on the molecular level. You see, science-based medicine can actually do that (you know, describe what happens to molecules within the DNA strands as the virus tries to replicate).
Look-up the side effects of Statins? Why? That’s nothing more than argumentum ad odium; you suggest that these treatments are so awful that a treatment that has no side effects is automatically better? If I introduced a new kind of treatment and the course of treatment was licking my toes how would you react? Well, it might not be as effective as Antiretroviral drugs, but at least there are no side effects. 🙂
I’m training in holistic medicine, and even I would always recommend “traditional” medicine to those with serious illnesses. To me, homeopathic medicine is something extra, or for those for whom, like me, standrad methods are too harsh. Even if it turns out holistic medicine is nothing more than a placebo effect, I’ll still perform it as if it works, it works. Medicine is medicine. Many standard medicines for common ailments are stronger doses of homeopathic remedies. Women in labour used to chew willow bark as a pain killer- it contains acetylsalicylic acid, or aspirin. Of course, if the mild dose isn’t enough, try a stronger dose or an alternative, but many illnesses are psychological as well as physical, so why not treat both accordingly.
I will stress for a broken leg/HIV/death etc, please seek traditional medical help first. Then look towards being pampered with a nice smelly massage and some herbal tea.
The link in my previous comment didn’t make it the first time, here it is again …
You see, science-based medicine can actually do that (you know, describe what happens to molecules within the DNA strands as the virus tries to replicate).
Jessica M, you have a long way to go in your training if you can’t tell the difference between Naturopathy (natural remedies like willow bark or St. John’s wort) and Homoeopathy (extreme dilutions of toxic substances until there are no more molecules of the toxic substance present – only then is it given to the patient).
“Even if it turns out holistic medicine is nothing more than a placebo effect, I’ll still perform it as if it works, it works. Medicine is medicine.”
Has the world gone mad?? I’d like to see you tell that one to a dying Aids patient. If any conventional doctor said that he would be suspended immediately and prosecuted for gross negligence.
Patricia: I’m frightened of people being cheated, of the placebo effect being misused, of desperate being who are clutching at any straw being taken advantage of.
Patrica – patients should have the right to choose, but they also deserve the right to understand that what it is that they are choosing. How many people would generally accept homeopathic treatments if it was fully explained to them that what they were taking had no active ingredient and relies purly on the placebo effect?
Regarding the remedies themselves, it’s not a case of not understanding, it’s a case of homeopathic remedies not conforming to the scientific laws of nature and physics that the human race already understands fully. The whole prinicple of homeopathic medicine involves us believing that water has an unknown, undetectable, scientificallly-unworkable magical property.
On top of that, I can only echo James comment – the burden of proof lies on the homeopaths to prove it works, not for us to disprove that it doesn’t (which as everyone should know, is an impossibilty anyway as you can’t disprove a negative). As Carl Sagan pointed out, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. If you want me to believe that water can somehow “remember” molicules that it previously used to contain, then I’m going to need some extraordinary proof to back that up.
Paul B
What was that Tim Mitchin quote from his poem “storm”?
To paraphrase “Though the memory of water for microscopic quantities of active ingredient appears infinite, it conveniently forgets all the poo it’s had in it”.
Don’t scientists estimate that every glass of water you drink has been pissed out by at least 3 dinosaurs!
That for me is the clincher… on a Horizon documentary they likened the dilution of a homoeopathic remedy to a literal drop in the ocean, i.e. there isn’t a single traceable molecule of the active ingredient to be found anywhere in the average dose. In double blind tests on the same documentary it scored exactly what you’d expect from a placebo drug. And smarties are pretty cheap.
As Minchin said, in relation to the willow bark thing… alternative medicine which has a proven track record is called ‘medicine’.
I don’t doubt that homeopaths believe what they do, but crediting the placebo effect as a cure-all solution is simply unscientific, and in the case of HIV treatment potentially lethal.
Would pharmaceutical companies really get annoyed if homeopathy worked? Wouldn’t they just research and market their own homeopathic remedies and make even more money from it?
I’ve just Google Scholared a couple of recent review articles (because I should really be working) and it seems that the evidence is, at best, inconclusive. Admittedly this is based on very little knowledge or research on my part but one of the articles is from a peer reviewed homeopathic journal (article dated 2003). The article states that prior to 1997, less than a third of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy were judged to be of high methodological quality and the comparative trials (no dates given) were likely to exaggerate treatments effects. It also states that there has been a low volume of research.
Now you might suggest that the big companies are controlling the research and you may be right in a few cases. But academics are a contrary bunch on the whole and do not appreciate being told what to do (I know because I am one) . So it is very likely that someone would have blown the whistle by now if decent medical research was being hampered. Bear in mind also that medical research is often a collaborative effort. I work with statisticians who are directly involved in medical research – they receive no funding from any medical organisation (they are funded by the university and general science research councils). So whilst I agree that academic research is not always free from bias or free from errors, it is infinitely better than the alternative.
Conventional medical treatment is far from perfect and carries with it a substantial risk of complications. Why not be balanced, or dare I say it ‘objective’, and educate people about iatrogenic illnesses, and then let them decide for themselves if the risk is appropriate in their individual case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenic
These scientists clearly think they know better, and dont want people to be in a position to take responsibility for their own lives. In modern enlightened societies, we allow people to vote for their own politicians, believe in their own gods, smoke, run marathons, eat macdonalds, and do all sorts of things that might be bad for them. Surely this is preferential to the alternative, a facist autocrasy run by experts who always know whats best.
I think it looks as if this debate has extended into whether or not using unproven methods such as homeopathy is a question of choice – but surely without all of the information it’s impossible to make an informed decision? Doesn’t this undermine the whole concept of choice? And indeed, intelligence?
I have a fairly deterministic outlook and believe that, to a certain extent, free will is an illusion. We are shaped by our experiences and in the absence of data to the contrary, are unlikely to create opportunities for learning anything that directly contradicts a long-held belief. Without balanced imput, it’s literally not possible to choose – your choice was already made unconsciously before the opportunity was presented and so contrary data is much harder to assimilate. We simply run on the rails of habit and belief.
I feel we need to create a culture of evaluating the spectrum of a debate, not just polarised/dichotomised representation of two absolute truths, so that novel data isn’t ‘flagged’ as Right or Wrong when we are first exposed to it. Only by providing all of the information about a subject in an objective and unemotive way can we really support any notion of choice.
Dave: don’t worry – homeopathy as a practice is pretty safe from being banned, because you can’t really stop people from drinking water. However, you CAN regulate against people claiming medicinal effects that it doesn’t have. “freedom of choice” and “being allowed to claim non-existent medicinal effects” are not the same thing. You’ll note that if I catch AIDS there is no law preventing me from doing handstands every hour on the hour in the hope it will cure me, but if I start telling other AIDS sufferers to come tome for AIDS-curing handstand instructions because it could actually fix them, I will probably be in hot water.
Dave, it’s got very little to do with scientists or experts thinking ‘they know better’. Scientists and doctors are experts – that’s what the years of training are for. They do know better than me, I’d be worried if they didn’t. However, I don’t trust them implicitly but I do trust myself to make a judgement based on the evidence presented. There is very little evidence (scientific research) that homeopathy cures illnesses or alleviates symptoms better than conventional medicine.
Hayley, the problem is that we have all the information. We know how things like molecules now work, and the fact is that we understand and can see how regular medicine works, however we can see how homeopathic medicine is supposed to work – the point is that it doesn’t. Water and molecules don’t behave in the way homeopaths want them to in order for the homeopathic remedies to work.
We have the knowledge. Homeopathic medicine is essentially magic if it does what they claim it does. Your choice is then down to if you believe in magic water that cures people, or you don’t. It’s not a matter of homeopathic medicine needing “futher research” or “better understanding” – it doesn’t and can’t do what it claims. This makes it essentially a lie.
The “Freedom of choice” argument is the same argument Nick Naylor the tobacco lobbyist favours in the movie “Thankyou for Smoking”.
It highlights a fundamental flaw in “freedom of choice” arguments that in certain situations where the only argument in favour of the proposition is freedom of choice, the freedom of choice amounts to choosing the length of the rope with which to hang yourself.
You can choose to be a 40 a day smoker, but you don’t get to choose the consequences.
If I have a serious illness and choose to cure it with what is essentially water, the fact that I chose to cure it with water isn’t going to help me one little bit. Making a properly informed choice is more of a reasonable approach, and given the failure of homeopathic remedies to deliver a significantly different result to a placebo in extensive double blind tests, I know what I’d choose.
Hi Paul, many thanks for your reply. I read everyone else’s comments on this site but always assume that mine are disappearing into the ether! It’s nice to be validated ; )
First I have to say that I’m a psychology student (I’ve studied Biology and Physiology too, and I’m a banner-waving Athiest) and well aquainted with the value of empirical evidence and employing scientific methodology to determine ‘truth’. I aim to base my entire career around it.
My personal stance is that I agree with your completely – I can’t bear the fact that people are suffering and exploited in so many ways, profits gained from homeopathic remedies being a very good example.
Perhaps I missed the point of the discussion, but I was just picking up on how once we’ve chosen which side of the fence to sit on, it will affect how we view any future information, which isn’t constructive. After a while, we can loose the ability to debate the issue itself and arguments just become a competition of who’s right. Once this argument pattern is established we begin to defend our mental ‘territory’ with a certain amount of agression, and it becomes so much more difficult to change someone’s mind to your point of view as they (naturally) balk against this.
Of course our passions drive our beliefs whichever stance we take, but by defending our beliefs by trying to determine absolute rights and wrongs can inhibit one’s ability to change. It’s not easy to admit when you’re wrong – that whole excrutiating ‘told you so’ business can really get in the way. Offering an opinion without deriding those who think differently, and opening up a topic to consider everyone’s perspective will allow them to see your point of view without any instincts around having to defend or attack with terminal intensity – and hopefully incite people to draw closer to a healthier perspective instead of leaving them clinging desperately to what they thought they knew.
Now I’ve read this back, maybe it isn’t quite appropriate for this thread, but my mind does wander so… Apologies for the initial confusion and I hope this is a bit clearer. x
As has been proved in many psychological studies, many people will accept and do what the person wearing the white scientist/doctor coat. Homeopaths often present themselves in this way. As has been demonstrated by Patricia’s comment, homeopaths generally believe in what they are advocating and reinforced by the white doctor coat will persuade many vulnerable people who present themselves wanting help. In my experience the better informed and prepared for any medical appointment you have, the more you will get out of it. Making sure you ask the questions you want answers to and not giving up until you get those answers is the best policy.
What a lot of rubbish!
Alternative medicine has been used for thousands of years. Acupuncture for instance has been used for 3,000 years or so and still used today to good effect. Hypnosis (Derren you should definitely know about this!) was used successfully by doctors in the second world war to prevent pain and bleeding when amputating limbs of soldiers because there were no anaesthetics available.
Alternative medicine of course is not a universal panacea for all illnesses but it has helped millions of sick people and also provided cures where modern medicine had failed.
So don’t be narrow minded! Of course it is against the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishments for them to accept that there other alternatives and that there are so many mysteries about the human body that they know very little about.
So I say don’t be superstitious but don’t shut out the possibilities to alternative ways of healing and being healed.
It is a feature of all humans that they will explore and leave no stone unturned in the search for truth. That is not just the domain of ‘scientists’.
I’d be very disappointed if Derren Brown sided with those pseudo scientists who try to condemn anything alternative just because ‘it can’t be explained’. (Who’s paying them to go try ridicule the so called quacks? Some other richer quacks perhaps!)
I thought he was more clever than that.
Of course skepticism is healthy but why should that only be the case for traditional medicines. I personally prefer to keep an open, questioning mind with regards to all types of medicine. Being natural does not make something bad or ineffective, being created by a pharmaceutical company does not make something right or effective. I’ve seen mainstream medicine work, I’ve seen it fail and I’ve seen it cause horrendous side effects. I’ve seen natural approaches fail, I’ve seen cases where maybe there was a placebo effect or the patient would have gotten better anyway but I’ve also seen cases where it absolutely 100% definitely did work. And no, no chance of a placebo as I’m talking about the treatment of a serious, life threatening condition in a wild animal. So there is no question in my mind that homeopathy CAN work. I wouldn’t advocate it’s use in place of proven medicines where they are available but I think it’s narrow minded and unbalanced to dismiss them out of hand.
Can anyone tell me why Randi didn’t go ahead with the tests with George Vithoulkas? There’s been a lot of smug faces on his side of the fence, and I have to admit I’ve not heard much from the skeptics POV on why the tests weren’t carried out.
Not trolling, just curious to hear if anyone knows.
Haven’t read or seen those commercials I have to say.
Homeopathy can be usefull but not when something is seriously wrong already. Even regular medicine can not cure lots of things quite often, will not cure.
But as homeopathy comes from the past and present medicine is based on this past partially .. I’m in favor of homeopathy when it comes to small things. It’s quite often better than regular medicine. And if homepathy is been done the way it is supposed to be done, then you will be treated very personal .. based on your body, your self. BUT most people will not cope so well with all the limitations when it comes to food and drinks, and therefore it will not work.
I’m sure that nature will have many ways to take care of things .. but we are not that into nature anymore, nor have most people still the knowledge. Once it was the only thing we had. Lots of animals still use it sort of. Prevention perhaps.
If it is someone’s personal choice not to see to regular medicine/treatment (and old enough), knowing that regular medicine probably could have taken better care of it .., I myself see that as a free choice of anyone. Not when it comes to their childeren.
Regular medicine often has its backdrafts and creates lots of other things which can be seen upon as diseases as well … Homeopathy as well. When used without knowledge. It is known that they can obstruct eachother’s effects when used together.
Its like people have a distrust in their doctor ( which is sometimes not suprising with the way news papers report things)
However do people not realise that if there was an actual cure for these disease then the doctors would be using it!
x
As someone who has grown up with a nurse as a mother, who cared for rehab, e.r, itc and other patients, and me being around it. I would have to say, that while there maybe be herbal or homeopathic solutions out there for treating things like skin rash or athlete’s foot. There is no substitute for using proven treatments for these illnesses, including cancer. If you think taking a these alternative treatments for advanced cancer instead of using chemo or another PROVEN form of treatment you should be forced for the right one, nobody deserves to die out of ignorance. These people saying big drug companies don’t want people to learn about conventional medicines so they will lose money may only be 10 percent of it. Ever wonder why they spend hundreds of millions a year for terminal illness research and new treatments to fix the old outdated ones. Yes, homeopathy was here since the 1940s, and now it’s the 21st century and they are producing new treatments and drugs everyday that are proven. I wouldn’t want someone who was using technology that was developed over a half century ago on me if new and more effective ones were in place. We shouldn’t take a step back just because it’s more convienant or cheaper!
Hayley,
No apologies nessecary – that was a lovely post, and I appriciate the spirit it was in. If everyone shared your mindset, it would certainly be easier to get along in this world.
As for posts disappearing, this blog is moderated, so you have to either wait or slip Phillis a fiver to get your post posted 🙂
All the best,
Paul B
I find it amusing to read comments along the lines of “homoepathic medicine must be right, because it’s been around for hundereds of years”. Hundreds of years ago we used to stick leeches on people as well. Thankfully we’ve learnt enough to move away from that, it’s just a shame we haven’t learnt enough to move away from Homeopathic medicine.
I’ve seen a few comments as well from practicioners and followers saying “Well, I wouldn’t perscribe it for cancer or AIDS”.
But why wouldn’t you? It works, doesn’t it?
If you believe it works, and it does what it’s supposed to, why wouldn’t you advocate it’s use against something where it has scientific proveable results, not just against headaches and sore throats?
Homeopathic medicine either works, or it doesn’t. It either does what it’s supposed to (cure any ailments) or it doesn’t.
It’s either a working medicine, or it isn’t.
It’s either magic, or a lie.
And this is my real probablem with it. If it is what it’s supposed to be, and it does what it’s supposed to, why aren’t we using it to cure cancer and AIDS? Why are we just using it to cure things like a sore throat, which is extremely hard to obejectify? Why are practicioners of this ‘wonder medicine’ not putting their livelyhood on the line and curing cancer left right and center?
I think the fact that homeopathic medicine has only ever resolved anything that the human being can resolve on its own has told you everything you need to know about this “medicine”
Paul B
Well, I find this a hard stance to defend as I am an extreme sceptic. But my wife took my daughter un-knowingly to me to a homeopath when she was 3 months old and suffering terribly with acid reflux. We had been to the hospital weeks earlier and the treatment they offered; despite them being 100% positive and encouraging didn’t work. We discontinued it.
Within 2 days of the homeopathic treatment our daughter was far better than previously and it does in fact appear to be the homeopath who ‘helped’ her.
As I see it the only possible outcomes are:
1) the NHS treatment took a while to work (despite being told it would take mere hours)
2) Placebo effect obviously couldn’t work on a baby but perhaps my wife and her care were aided by the intervention (although why wasn’t this the case with the encouraging NHS doctors also?)
3) the homeopathy in this instance was effective
4) my baby simply ‘got better’
As a sceptic I say 4 naturally – but the personal evidence would suggest 3.
I think – as with most things – we need to be careful in throwing the baby out with the bathwater and should use a more balanced mindsight that may accept that ‘some’ treatments ‘may’ actually be (albeit mildly) effective.
I am concerned at the number of well known folk who fervantly outlaw and ridicule anything not yet embraced by the scientific orthodoxy. There is a fundamentalism at work here which falsely lionizes Science at it is now Understood.
The mistake being made of course is that anything ‘not’ yet science is taken to be ‘pre’ science and not ‘post’ science. That is to say, ‘if you don’t uphold the current orthodoxy, you have not yet reached my level!’ All new frontiers appear as magical and mysterious at first (I am sure that any magician would understand the irony of this). But not all magic is sleight of hand and misdirection – some of it might simply be phenomena which we haven’t got a ‘map’ of yet (i.e. it transcends our current models).
Heavier than air flying machines were once thought impossible. Scientists told us that the power of the atom could not be harnessed (and DECCA records were sure Guitar bands were on the way out and refused the Beatles a contract) :-). Of course, this doesn’t prove that every new age idea is to be worshipped and adored – only that sometimes it is wise to suspend our judgement.
The quantum universe is so unusual, non locality proves influence at a distance, observation influences the behaviour of photons (double slit experiment). etc.
Dawkins is bullying and has tried to stamp out publication of important fringe research (e.g by serious scientists like Rupert Sheldrake). It is a shame that such a reductive position has many followers each of whom believe they keep back the chaos of regression, when instead they may well be persecuting the champions of new frontiers. The frankenstein mob ready to storm the castles of change these days appear to be made up of Dawkins’ easy allies – James Randi, Phillip Pullman, Derren Brown, Christopher Hitchens etc. They think they are fighting religion (of which I am no defender) – instead they fight change and the shock of the new. But they are a little late (by about 100 years) – ask Planck, Einstein, Heisneberg, and Schrödinger.
And while we are adoring science as it is – remember it gave us Thalidomide, a Mars full of canals, Flu vaccines that caused Guillain-Barré syndrome, a stationary earth, a flat earth, and really well developed cancer treatments (burn, cut or poison), not to mention Swine Flu pandemics that don’t exist – etc.
Real science embraces evidence – no matter how counter intuitive it is – and since the turn of the century’s discovery of Quantum mechanics it is a VERY counter intuitive world indeed.
I don’t think the current scientific orthodoxy are very smart at all. I don’t even think their position (frozen in time) is very dare I say it – ‘scientific.’
If homeopathic medicine or its practitioners are going to advertise to the public ,it should not mislead people (intentinally or unintentially) there is something wrong with allopathic medicine or that they are “alternative”. The real danger are people who sadly are easily sent down a prim rose paths at the risk of huring themselves.
My Pediatric practice continues to see people looking for alternatives to proven & safe vaccines. Meanwhile Measles, Haemophilis, Pertusis & Mumps are on the rise. No one in the media wants to hear this or that vaccines are safe & effective. These are toubling times.
It does not help the public to hear alternative pratitioners riding this negative publicity bandwagon in order to promote their “alternatives”.
In addtion, some of my homeopath friends cannot afford insurance.
They turned to homeopathy thinking it will keep them well.
I would rather they be able to afford insurance first.
addendum
To some of the other responders
We can philosphy and blame all we want, but it is the public we serve who will suffer the most if we keep tracking towards the “alternative” course we are heading.
Here we go again. The same old tired arguments in favour of Homeopathy from people claiming to be open minded. People who call homeopathy natural. People who compare it with aspirin. AARRGH!
It’s very simple. Homeopathy isn’t medicine. It’s pretending that water is medicine. Water IS NOT medicine. Not alternative, not complementary, just bullshit.
The move to get the WHO to condemn the use of Homeopathy for all disease would be welcome, but the slowly slowly catchy monkey and all that, the request is for five actual killer diseases. Honestly, if anyone has any objection to this they’re ignorant, stupid or both.
When will modern science cure this malady (homeopathy) created by the “human mind”…. or can they not find the mind to test how the thought was created?!
🙂
I’m no doctor….and… I work at a store that sells homeopathic & “natural” products and I wouldn’t recommend using homeopathy for major health issues. Maybe if you were working one-on-one with a homeopath in conjunction with lifestyle changes…. but for a free clinic where doctors are treating many patients with life threatening issues, I’d choose the drugs.
As for false hopes/claims…. People sell BS all over the world, gotta live with it!
Its an interesting discussion, debate, or mud-slinging contest going on here. Where do you draw the line as to what healing methods are going to be the most effective in a given situation? Especially one where you are making the choice for others?
I have been a Registered Nurse for over 30 years. Ten years ago I discovered Western Homeopathic Medicine and have been studying and practicing it ever since. Did you know that in the 1918 Flu Pandemic, Homeopathic doctors in the U.S. had a <1.03% death rate in treating the flu while Allopathic doctors had a death rate of 30%. Did you know that even today Homeopathic doctors have a <1-3% death rate in treating pneumonia while Allopathic doctors, even with antibiotics and IVs, have an 18% death rate. While Allopathy can save lives during acute traumas and needed surgery it is the other part of Western Medicine, Homeopathy that prevents disease, cures and restores. Western Homeopathic Medicine was once practiced by 1 out of 4 doctors in the U.S. and I hope it is restored to our medical system. We can no longer afford to have our medical system monopolized by drug companies. While drugs can save lives in traumas, their action is suppressive and, therefore, drugs are not curative. Western Homeopathic Medicine has always proven itself in all the world epidemics with superior results. This is a matter of public record. I urge you to study homeopathy and practice it with an open mind and not simply parrot what others have told you. I assure you, you will be amazed to discover that Western Homeopathic Medicine is a bonifide and vigorous system of medicine. The only monument in Washington DC dedicated to a medical doctor is that of Samuel Hahnemann, MD, the founding father of the system of Western Homeopathic Medicine, who was declared the “Leader of the Great Medical Reformation of the 19th Centuryâ€. His monument was dedicated June 21, 1900, by President McKinley and supported by both political parties. Mahatma Gandhi said, “Homeopathy cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond all doubt safer, more economical, and the most complete medical science.†I urge you to discover this with your own study and personal use. You will not be disappointed.
@FL, the homeopath in question should be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.
@Mary
‘Did you know that in the 1918 Flu Pandemic, Homeopathic doctors in the U.S. had a <1.03% death rate in treating the flu while Allopathic doctors had a death rate of 30%.’
Assuming that these stats are correct, I would begin researching this claim by investigating the possibility that once the homeopathic medicine was seen to be failing the seriously ill patient was transferred to regular medical care, thus making the homeopaths’ perceived death rate lower than the doctors’ death rate.
I would also investigate the relative numbers of people treated by the homeopaths as opposed to the doctors – if only a few thousand were treated homeopathically as opposed to millions medically then the stats could just be a blip – and the conditions in which the patients were treated. Were medically treated patients actually given sufficient care or were the hospitals overrrun so care was patchy and insufficient? By what definition does a victim receive ‘medical care’?
I would also look at the social status of the patients – were rich, healthy and well-nourished people treated by homeopaths and poor, sickly and malnourished people treated by doctors?
I would also look at the symptoms which characterised full-blown spanish flu according to homeopaths as opposed to symptoms according to doctors.
Stats can be misleading if the full context is not known. This is just a suggestion of what could provide a fuller context to these stats, I’m sure there’s more which could help us understand what happened.
But Mary, homeopathy has never been proven to work. Where are you actually getting these figures? What are your sources?
This isn’t about being pro-pharmaceutical and anti-change. There are counter-intuitive and messed-up weird discoveries in science constantly. Science is all about trying to understand how and why things happen, and putting aside your own biases as much as possible. We had a face transplant recently – a FACE TRANSPLANT, how wacked-out is that? If scientists hated new things, then that sort of technique would never develop.
The evidence is that homeopathy doesn’t work, pretty much because it’s water. Scientists love natural rememdies that work – tons of drugs came from herbal medicines, exercise helps manage depression, a good diet can prevent and control various diseases. That’s just a few natural rememdies I can think of at random that science doesn’t deny – they work. It’s just that this one doesn’t.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8076556.stm
Look, here’s a possible new natural rememdy right here!
Addenda to above (just more of the same, really…)
Flu is caused by a virus. Modern anti-viral drugs were not available in 1919. How exactly did a homeopathic remedy act as an anti-viral? Or did ot not ‘suppress’ the virus at all – in which case how did it work in a scientifically verifiable way?
The issue of Big Pharma in one form or another is often brought up when the effectiveness of alternative medicines are under discussion. These issues are separate. Big Pharma’s existence does not make the medicines ineffective nor does it make alternative medicines effective.
1. There are so-called clinically trialled allopathic medicines on the market today that have passed FDA approval with a statistical likelihood of effectiveness lower than that for the existence of Extra Sensory Perception. Clinical testing is not gospel. It could be argued that it is sometimes not even science.
2. None of the above comments opposed to homeopathy indicate any real understanding of what homeopathy is. It is not a simplistic dosage variance. That is allopathic thinking and it is philosophically akin to calling an orange ineffective for not being sufficiently apple-like.
3. It has worked for me. Often instantly. If can’t fix a broken leg because that is traumatic – but then neither can allopathic medicine, which can only reset the trauma and await self healing.
There are an interesting mix of opinion here, and we should respect others opinion…
Actually the hell with that, complimentary medicines are only complimentary becuase they cannot demostrably be shown to work… the ones that can be become medicine.
There is a huge danger in peddling this rubbish (and an even huger amount of money to be made by doing so)
lol@SGC…If your computer ever has diarea or a slightly fever, Forget about Norton and the like…i´ve found Homeopaty Software!
http://www.earthsremedy.com/
How so homeopaty doesn´t work?