Homeopathy Cares
Homeopathy has a history of success in clinical practice
• In Cuba homeopathy has enabled 2.3 million people to be cheaply and effectively protected against endemic Leptospirosis. [1]
• At Bristol Homeopathic Hospital 70.7% of 6,500 patients with chronic conditions benefited from homeopathic treatment and had reduced need for conventional medication. [2]
• About 6 million people in the UK choose homeopathy despite the fact that for the vast majority this means that they have to pay for their treatment. [3]
• There is considerable research evidence for homeopathy, with more randomised controlled trials being positive than negative. For more information see www.britishhomeopathic.org.
Homeopathy offers solutions to the NHS
• The NHS spends £11 billion annually on conventional drugs out of a budget of £100 billion, and this cost keeps rising, so it is essential to look seriously at alternatives. [4]
• Only 0.001% of the NHS drugs budget is spent on homeopathic medicines, and these are mainly used to treat patients with chronic health problems who have not been helped, despite great cost, by conventional means. [5,6]
• The NHS also spends £2 billion annually on treating the adverse side effects of conventional drugs. Homeopathy has no side effects. [7]
• Even a small increase in spending on homeopathy could produce dramatic savings, cutting waste and increasing patient satisfaction.
Opposition to homeopathy is based on propaganda
• Homeopathy has a growing evidence base, but according to the British Medical Journal, of the 2,500 most commonly used treatments in the NHS, 51% have unknown effectiveness, and only 11% have been shown to be beneficial.[8,9]
• The leading so-called ‘expert’ and critic of homeopathy, Professor Edzard Ernst, has admitted that he has no qualifications in homeopathy.[10]
• The leading organisation opposing homeopathy, Sense About Science, is funded by pharmaceutical companies and relies on a strategy of propaganda stunts rather than scientific research.[11,12]
• The leading popular book critical of homeopathy (Trick or Treatment?) has been shown to be scientifically unreliable. It was co-authored by Simon Singh (a trustee of Sense About Science) and Professor Ernst.[13]
• The recent Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy was voted for by only three MPs. Of these only one attended the hearings and he has strong links to Sense About Science (Dr Evan Harris).[14,15,16]
A vision for an economic and effective medical future
H:MC21 believes that the NHS should increase the integration of homeopathic practitioners into front-line healthcare whilst monitoring both clinical and cost benefits.
H:MC21 believes that, by sharing clinical experience and skills in this way, homeopathic and conventional practitioners can provide the safest, most economic and most effective service to patients.
H:MC21 believes that this will allow the NHS to confirm the benefits of homeopathy in the real world of clinical practice.
References
1. G. Bracho et al., ‘Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control’, Homeopathy, 99 (2010),156-66, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839.
2. D.S. Spence, E.A. Thompson, S.J. Barron, ‘Homeopathic Treatment for Chronic Disease: A 6-Year, University-Hospital Outpatient Observational Study’, JACM, 2005, 11:793-798.
3. Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), response to Q211, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Evidence Check: Homeopathy (2010), p. Ev 70, at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf
4. Mr Mike O’Brien, Minister for Health Services, Department of Health, response to Q244, Evidence Check, p. Ev 73.
5. O’Brien, response to Q244, Evidence Check, p. Ev 73.
6. Spence et al.
7. Sarah Boseley, ‘Adverse drug reactions cost NHS £2bn’, The Guardian, 3 April 2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/03/nhs.drugsandalcohol, accessed 14 November 2008.
8. http://www.britishhomeopathic.org /research/
9. ‘How much do we know?’, BMJ Clinical Evidence at http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp.
10. ‘Interview mit Professor Edzard Ernst, Exeter’, Homöopathische Nachrichten, April 2010, 1-3, translation at http://www.hmc21.org/ #/edzard-ernst/4543212059.
11. Funding information taken from the annual accounts at the Charity Commission.
12. Strategy information from the ‘Memorandum submitted by Sense About Science’ (HO36), Evidence Check, pp. Ev 7-8.
13. William Alderson, Halloween Science (Stoke Ferry: Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century, 2009), available at http://www.hmc21.org/#/ halloween-science/4535659799.
14. ‘Formal minutes’, Evidence Check, pp. 48-50.
15. Register of Members’ Interests, available at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10261, accessed 22 May 2010.
16. http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/other/491/, accessed 22 May 2010.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Sunday, 28 November 2010
Cost of swine flu "pandemic" - socalled. £1.2bn
Sorry for being late in posting this. For posterity, as so many of us publicly warned the authorities not to go down this route but they did, I think it is important to remember the cost of this fiasco. It is also illustrative to see what very much looks like a whitewash when what the public needed was an honest account of what the Labour Government and their medical advisors at the time did wrong and how many people suffered as a result.
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=153993463
Swine flu pandemic cost UK £1.2bn
Dame Deirdre Hine discusses the report into the UK's response to the swine flu pandemic
The swine flu pandemic cost Britain more than £1.2 billion despite being much less severe than feared, a Government-commissioned review has found.
Warnings that 65,000 people in the UK could die in a worst-case scenario proved far too pessimistic - and the actual death toll during the outbreak was 457.
An inquiry into the handling of the emergency concluded that the Government's response was "proportionate and effective". [Comment: Well they would say that wouldn't they?]
But it criticised the restrictive contracts with drug companies which have left a stockpile of over 20 million unused doses of swine flu vaccines for England alone. The review revealed that Britain spent £654 million preparing for a possible flu pandemic, and £587 million responding to last year's H1N1 outbreak - a total of £1.24 billion. This included £1.01 billion on drugs, among them anti-virals, vaccines and antibiotics, as well as £115.4 million on items like face masks and respirators.
Critics questioned why the bill for tackling the pandemic was so large, with one describing Britain's response as a "hugely expensive farce". But Dame Deirdre Hine, a former chief medical officer for Wales who led the review, defended the cost. "I think we have got to set these figures, which seem enormous, against the potential for saving lives," she told reporters. "It is fairly clear that there probably were lives saved of very young people, young children and so on." [Comment: let's have the evidence, and also the stats for those who died and those injured by the vaccine]
After the H1N1 outbreak in April last year, the Government made plans to buy up to 132 million doses of swine flu vaccine, enough to give everyone in the UK two doses. But the contracts it signed with drug manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Baxter were too inflexible, the review found. Baxter agreed to a "break clause" allowing the Government to cancel its order for some of the doses but GSK refused.
The Department of Health said it ordered 90 million vaccine doses from GSK, of which it eventually agreed to take 34.8 million. It also placed an order for 36 million doses with Baxter, 9.2 million of which were purchased before the contract was cancelled. About 4.88 million doses of the vaccine were given to people in England in priority groups such as pregnant women and sufferers of asthma, diabetes and heart disease.
The Department of Health said it still held just over 20 million doses of swine flu vaccine for England, with shelf lives that run out by October 2011. Dame Deirdre's review team said commercial confidentiality prevented them from revealing how much money would have been saved if the Government's vaccine contracts had included break clauses. But their report said: "The lack of such a clause in the advance purchase agreements for both contracts consequently exposed the Exchequer to some risk."
Mark Wallace, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "The swine flu response has proved to be a hugely expensive farce. Serious questions must be asked about why so much was spent on combating a threat that turned out not to be very serious. It's unacceptable to hide the details of this massive bill behind the excuse of commercial confidentiality. We need full details and full answers about this scandalous waste of money."
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=153993463
Swine flu pandemic cost UK £1.2bn
Dame Deirdre Hine discusses the report into the UK's response to the swine flu pandemic
The swine flu pandemic cost Britain more than £1.2 billion despite being much less severe than feared, a Government-commissioned review has found.
Warnings that 65,000 people in the UK could die in a worst-case scenario proved far too pessimistic - and the actual death toll during the outbreak was 457.
An inquiry into the handling of the emergency concluded that the Government's response was "proportionate and effective". [Comment: Well they would say that wouldn't they?]
But it criticised the restrictive contracts with drug companies which have left a stockpile of over 20 million unused doses of swine flu vaccines for England alone. The review revealed that Britain spent £654 million preparing for a possible flu pandemic, and £587 million responding to last year's H1N1 outbreak - a total of £1.24 billion. This included £1.01 billion on drugs, among them anti-virals, vaccines and antibiotics, as well as £115.4 million on items like face masks and respirators.
Critics questioned why the bill for tackling the pandemic was so large, with one describing Britain's response as a "hugely expensive farce". But Dame Deirdre Hine, a former chief medical officer for Wales who led the review, defended the cost. "I think we have got to set these figures, which seem enormous, against the potential for saving lives," she told reporters. "It is fairly clear that there probably were lives saved of very young people, young children and so on." [Comment: let's have the evidence, and also the stats for those who died and those injured by the vaccine]
After the H1N1 outbreak in April last year, the Government made plans to buy up to 132 million doses of swine flu vaccine, enough to give everyone in the UK two doses. But the contracts it signed with drug manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Baxter were too inflexible, the review found. Baxter agreed to a "break clause" allowing the Government to cancel its order for some of the doses but GSK refused.
The Department of Health said it ordered 90 million vaccine doses from GSK, of which it eventually agreed to take 34.8 million. It also placed an order for 36 million doses with Baxter, 9.2 million of which were purchased before the contract was cancelled. About 4.88 million doses of the vaccine were given to people in England in priority groups such as pregnant women and sufferers of asthma, diabetes and heart disease.
The Department of Health said it still held just over 20 million doses of swine flu vaccine for England, with shelf lives that run out by October 2011. Dame Deirdre's review team said commercial confidentiality prevented them from revealing how much money would have been saved if the Government's vaccine contracts had included break clauses. But their report said: "The lack of such a clause in the advance purchase agreements for both contracts consequently exposed the Exchequer to some risk."
Mark Wallace, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "The swine flu response has proved to be a hugely expensive farce. Serious questions must be asked about why so much was spent on combating a threat that turned out not to be very serious. It's unacceptable to hide the details of this massive bill behind the excuse of commercial confidentiality. We need full details and full answers about this scandalous waste of money."
NHS funding for orthodox medicine risks misleading patients
Yes, I am deliberately transposing the words "NHS funding for homeopathy risks misleading patients" which Sir John Beddington allegedly said.
It was reported in the Guardian, which, one assumes, is proud of producing a regular flow of anti-homeopathy articles,
"Sir John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser, said patients might believe homeopathic treatments could protect them against serious illnesses, or treat existing conditions, because GPs and hospitals are allowed to prescribe them on the NHS."
I think Beddington is a fool (here I am being polite because I'm an Englishman) to trot out a comment which suggests that a proven alternative and safe form of medicine, unlike the current socalled orthodox medicine, doesn't work. Oh, sorry, I forgot for a moment that he's terribly important - Professor of Applied Population Biology (What?) and is (Labour appointed) Chief Scientific Adviser at £165,000 pa. And, like the hierarchy of the BMA, clearly wants homeopathy killed, which incidentally would make orthodox medicine's monopoly on healthcare complete. Aren’t monopolies meant to be unlawful? Why isn’t the Office of Fair Trading investigating the anti-competitive practices of the BMA?
If Beddington took the trouble to check, he'd find that loads of (“scientifically trained”) doctors through the last couple of hundred years have chosen voluntarily to go over to prescribing homeopathic remedies for the very reason that their orthodox remedies weren't curing their patients. In fact some orthodox remedies were killing or maiming them. These doctors have written loads of books about their experiences. And loads of doctors have cured with homeopathy serious, life threatening illnesses where the conventional medicine of the day had no answers, and used homeopathics effectively prophylactically. And I'm not just talking about curing patients in epidemics eg cholera, typhus, Yellow fever, dyptheria in the old days (see http://www.whale.to/v/winston.html), but recently in Cuba's leptospirosis epidemic in 2007
So, Prof B, just read these snippets:
"One physician in a Pittsburgh hospital asked a nurse if she knew
anything better than what he was doing, because he was losing many
cases. "Yes, Doctor, stop aspirin and go down to a homeopathic
pharmacy, and get homeopathic remedies." The Doctor replied: "But that
is homeopathy." "I know it, but the homeopathic doctors for whom I have
nursed have not lost a single case."--W. F. Edmundson, MD, Pittsburgh"
“In Cuba, Leptospirosis is recorded by an efficient national surveillance programme. Its incidence correlates closely with heavy rainfall and subsequent flooding. In late 2007, in response to a developing epidemic, and with only enough vaccine to treat 15,000 high-risk people, the government decided to treat the entire population of the region, over one year of age, with a homeopathic medicine. This was prepared from the inactivated causative organism by the Cuban National Vaccine Institute.
The homeopathic medicine was given to the 2.3 million population of the provinces usually worst affected. Within a few weeks the number of cases had fallen from the forecast 38 to 4 cases per 100,000 per week, significantly fewer than the historically-based forecast for those weeks of the year. The 8.8 million population of the other provinces did not receive homeopathic treatment and the incidence was as forecast. The effect appeared to be sustained: there was an 84% reduction in infection in the treated region in the following year (2008) when, for the first time, incidence did not correlate with rainfall. In the same period, incidence in the untreated region increased by 22%.” http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/197128.php
Doesn't that make you wonder whether you are talking nonsense, Prof B? Oh, I interrupted you .....
"I have made it completely clear that there is no scientific basis for homeopathy beyond the placebo effect and that there are serious concerns about its efficacy," Professor Beddington told the Commons science and technology committee today.
“He went on to warn that government funding for homeopathy risked legitimising unproven treatments and that patients could harm their health by choosing these over conventional vaccines and medicines.”
Well, Prof B, did you ever hear of something called the swine flu pandemic on which the last Labour Government wasted over £1.2bn of the taxpayer's money and risked harming the health of the British nation with the swine flu vaccine? Perhaps you've forgotten about the nasty side effects it had on so many, and perhaps you've forgotten that homeopathy doesn't have adverse side effects, and that homeopaths are daily called upon to treat the adverse effects of orthodox drugs? The efficacy and safety of that vaccine for all was unproven at the time this country's Government and medical authorities enthusiastically endorsed it. And do you recall the massive percentage of GPs and nurses who when polled said they would never take the vaccine themselves?
What’s that?
“Professor Beddington cited the case of a man who caught malaria after being advised to take a homeopathic preparation to protect against the disease.”
Well, Prof B, there is no orthodox malaria drug which has protected 100% of those given it by their doctors from malaria. And their side effects? Maybe you didn’t know that an orthodox-doctor-prescribed malaria drug ruined my honeymoon and made me so sick that I couldn’t move for days and only got better when I stopped taking it. Yes, I WAS BEING POISONED.
I doubt you’d want to believe it, but I recently had a patient who’d contracted typhoid while on holiday (confirmed by tests). The reason I had him – for homeopathic treatment – was because orthodox medicine wasn’t curing him. In fact he was feeling very ill indeed, had a lot of nasty symptoms, and was getting very concerned. Two homeopathic remedies and three days later he was feeling so much better he returned to work. In homeopathy we are used to such cases. But do you see us saying that all of orthodox medicine should be scrapped? Not often. But then, we homeopaths generally have open minds. I’m sorry that you don’t. Hence the headline for this posting.
It was reported in the Guardian, which, one assumes, is proud of producing a regular flow of anti-homeopathy articles,
"Sir John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser, said patients might believe homeopathic treatments could protect them against serious illnesses, or treat existing conditions, because GPs and hospitals are allowed to prescribe them on the NHS."
I think Beddington is a fool (here I am being polite because I'm an Englishman) to trot out a comment which suggests that a proven alternative and safe form of medicine, unlike the current socalled orthodox medicine, doesn't work. Oh, sorry, I forgot for a moment that he's terribly important - Professor of Applied Population Biology (What?) and is (Labour appointed) Chief Scientific Adviser at £165,000 pa. And, like the hierarchy of the BMA, clearly wants homeopathy killed, which incidentally would make orthodox medicine's monopoly on healthcare complete. Aren’t monopolies meant to be unlawful? Why isn’t the Office of Fair Trading investigating the anti-competitive practices of the BMA?
If Beddington took the trouble to check, he'd find that loads of (“scientifically trained”) doctors through the last couple of hundred years have chosen voluntarily to go over to prescribing homeopathic remedies for the very reason that their orthodox remedies weren't curing their patients. In fact some orthodox remedies were killing or maiming them. These doctors have written loads of books about their experiences. And loads of doctors have cured with homeopathy serious, life threatening illnesses where the conventional medicine of the day had no answers, and used homeopathics effectively prophylactically. And I'm not just talking about curing patients in epidemics eg cholera, typhus, Yellow fever, dyptheria in the old days (see http://www.whale.to/v/winston.html), but recently in Cuba's leptospirosis epidemic in 2007
So, Prof B, just read these snippets:
"One physician in a Pittsburgh hospital asked a nurse if she knew
anything better than what he was doing, because he was losing many
cases. "Yes, Doctor, stop aspirin and go down to a homeopathic
pharmacy, and get homeopathic remedies." The Doctor replied: "But that
is homeopathy." "I know it, but the homeopathic doctors for whom I have
nursed have not lost a single case."--W. F. Edmundson, MD, Pittsburgh"
“In Cuba, Leptospirosis is recorded by an efficient national surveillance programme. Its incidence correlates closely with heavy rainfall and subsequent flooding. In late 2007, in response to a developing epidemic, and with only enough vaccine to treat 15,000 high-risk people, the government decided to treat the entire population of the region, over one year of age, with a homeopathic medicine. This was prepared from the inactivated causative organism by the Cuban National Vaccine Institute.
The homeopathic medicine was given to the 2.3 million population of the provinces usually worst affected. Within a few weeks the number of cases had fallen from the forecast 38 to 4 cases per 100,000 per week, significantly fewer than the historically-based forecast for those weeks of the year. The 8.8 million population of the other provinces did not receive homeopathic treatment and the incidence was as forecast. The effect appeared to be sustained: there was an 84% reduction in infection in the treated region in the following year (2008) when, for the first time, incidence did not correlate with rainfall. In the same period, incidence in the untreated region increased by 22%.” http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/197128.php
Doesn't that make you wonder whether you are talking nonsense, Prof B? Oh, I interrupted you .....
"I have made it completely clear that there is no scientific basis for homeopathy beyond the placebo effect and that there are serious concerns about its efficacy," Professor Beddington told the Commons science and technology committee today.
“He went on to warn that government funding for homeopathy risked legitimising unproven treatments and that patients could harm their health by choosing these over conventional vaccines and medicines.”
Well, Prof B, did you ever hear of something called the swine flu pandemic on which the last Labour Government wasted over £1.2bn of the taxpayer's money and risked harming the health of the British nation with the swine flu vaccine? Perhaps you've forgotten about the nasty side effects it had on so many, and perhaps you've forgotten that homeopathy doesn't have adverse side effects, and that homeopaths are daily called upon to treat the adverse effects of orthodox drugs? The efficacy and safety of that vaccine for all was unproven at the time this country's Government and medical authorities enthusiastically endorsed it. And do you recall the massive percentage of GPs and nurses who when polled said they would never take the vaccine themselves?
What’s that?
“Professor Beddington cited the case of a man who caught malaria after being advised to take a homeopathic preparation to protect against the disease.”
Well, Prof B, there is no orthodox malaria drug which has protected 100% of those given it by their doctors from malaria. And their side effects? Maybe you didn’t know that an orthodox-doctor-prescribed malaria drug ruined my honeymoon and made me so sick that I couldn’t move for days and only got better when I stopped taking it. Yes, I WAS BEING POISONED.
I doubt you’d want to believe it, but I recently had a patient who’d contracted typhoid while on holiday (confirmed by tests). The reason I had him – for homeopathic treatment – was because orthodox medicine wasn’t curing him. In fact he was feeling very ill indeed, had a lot of nasty symptoms, and was getting very concerned. Two homeopathic remedies and three days later he was feeling so much better he returned to work. In homeopathy we are used to such cases. But do you see us saying that all of orthodox medicine should be scrapped? Not often. But then, we homeopaths generally have open minds. I’m sorry that you don’t. Hence the headline for this posting.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Your Human Rights to Health are under attack!
This is an incredibly important topic for everyone who believes as this blog does that it is a basic human right not to have your Government or a Government sitting in Belgium tell you what you can or cannot put into your mouth or use in any other way you reasonably choose, or deny or restrict any individual the right of access to natural herbs or supplements to treat themselves, or their patients if they are a natural therapist.
I've extracted below the whole of an article at the URL mentioned. It's written from a US perspective but it's nonetheless applicable to us all in EU.
Fine for those who are not "into" treating themselves with natural remedies with little or no side effects, and who prefer to trot along to doctor trusting him/her to make decisions for them about stuffing some noxious chemicals down them. I'm happy for them if they are comfortable with the "what synthetic drug can I sell you?" system and turn a blind eye to the side effects. But for the large minority of us who don't buy into that system, who do our homework on what natural substances are available for us to self-treat safely and effectively, or who wish to consult a natural therapist on that subject, and have them prescribe us accordingly, this level of control is totally unacceptable. Natural healthcare has been effectively and safely used for generations without the burdensome controls now being imposed, and there is no reason to change this.
Let's all support the Alliance for Natural Health's legal challenge to the new EU laws, and let's have some public naming and shaming. It's high time that the bumpkins who have the impudence to interfere in our lives in this way were "outed" so that we can where possible deprive them of any future influence over us and try and make their lives very much less comfortable.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/11/09/traditional-medicines-to-become-illegal-in-europe/
In less than a year, virtually all medicinal herbs will be illegal in the European Union.
It sounds like a bad April Fool’s joke, but it’s not. On the first of April next year, thousands of products associated with traditional medicine will become illegal throughout the European Union.
April 1, 2011, is the date the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD) comes into force throughout Europe. Many herbal products—including those already sold safely as food supplements—will need to be registered under THMPD if they are to be made available. But registration involves a series of eligibility and technical challenges as well as prohibitive costs, so a large number of traditional medicines will be prevented from being registered. This is especially true if the medicines are made by smaller companies with low annual sales volumes—a fairly common occurrence with traditional medicines.
In their take-no-prisoners strategy to wipe out every penny of competition and gain complete control of the health of the people, Big Pharma and Agribusiness have scored a major win in Europe. Similar, potentially devastating battles are also underway in the U.S.
How can this be happening?
The secret weapon used by drug companies is trade law. According to Gaia Health:
“Rather than treating food and traditional medicines as human rights issues, they have been treated as trade issues. That makes the desires of large corporations the focus of food and herbal law, rather than the needs and desires of people.
It’s this twisting that has resulted in the FDA’s making outrageously absurd statements, such as claiming that Cheerios and walnuts quite literally become drugs simply because of health claims made for them.”
A related concern is that laws and regulations that are enacted in Europe often influence US policy—and a negative outcome over there is a dangerous precedent that could be adopted here at home. So preserving access in the EU is absolutely critical to our own health freedoms.
Our colleagues at the Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl), together with the European Benefyt Foundation (EBF), have established a joint working group to coordinate their response to this issue. They plan a three-pronged attack:
1. Force a judicial review of THMPD as being an unsuitable vehicle for assessing traditional medicines. Not a single Ayurvedic or traditional Chinese medicine product has been registered under it. This will be expensive—please see the ANH website about how you can help - at http://www.anh-europe.org/about-us.
2. Change the EU food supplement regulations. The current regulations say that herbal products previously sold as food supplements are to be reclassified as medicines; a food or herb preparation is considered “novel” (and thus banned from sale) if it cannot be proved that one or more of its ingredients had been used significantly in the EU before May 1997; and health claims made by many herbal products are banned, limiting consumer choice.
3. Facilitate a new regulatory framework for traditional medicinal products to replace THMPD and expand its scope. This would regulate not only over-the-counter herbal medicines, but practitioner-prescribed and pharmacy-dispensed supplements as well. The European Benefyt Foundation has been working to develop such a framework for over a year.
I've extracted below the whole of an article at the URL mentioned. It's written from a US perspective but it's nonetheless applicable to us all in EU.
Fine for those who are not "into" treating themselves with natural remedies with little or no side effects, and who prefer to trot along to doctor trusting him/her to make decisions for them about stuffing some noxious chemicals down them. I'm happy for them if they are comfortable with the "what synthetic drug can I sell you?" system and turn a blind eye to the side effects. But for the large minority of us who don't buy into that system, who do our homework on what natural substances are available for us to self-treat safely and effectively, or who wish to consult a natural therapist on that subject, and have them prescribe us accordingly, this level of control is totally unacceptable. Natural healthcare has been effectively and safely used for generations without the burdensome controls now being imposed, and there is no reason to change this.
Let's all support the Alliance for Natural Health's legal challenge to the new EU laws, and let's have some public naming and shaming. It's high time that the bumpkins who have the impudence to interfere in our lives in this way were "outed" so that we can where possible deprive them of any future influence over us and try and make their lives very much less comfortable.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/11/09/traditional-medicines-to-become-illegal-in-europe/
In less than a year, virtually all medicinal herbs will be illegal in the European Union.
It sounds like a bad April Fool’s joke, but it’s not. On the first of April next year, thousands of products associated with traditional medicine will become illegal throughout the European Union.
April 1, 2011, is the date the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD) comes into force throughout Europe. Many herbal products—including those already sold safely as food supplements—will need to be registered under THMPD if they are to be made available. But registration involves a series of eligibility and technical challenges as well as prohibitive costs, so a large number of traditional medicines will be prevented from being registered. This is especially true if the medicines are made by smaller companies with low annual sales volumes—a fairly common occurrence with traditional medicines.
In their take-no-prisoners strategy to wipe out every penny of competition and gain complete control of the health of the people, Big Pharma and Agribusiness have scored a major win in Europe. Similar, potentially devastating battles are also underway in the U.S.
How can this be happening?
The secret weapon used by drug companies is trade law. According to Gaia Health:
“Rather than treating food and traditional medicines as human rights issues, they have been treated as trade issues. That makes the desires of large corporations the focus of food and herbal law, rather than the needs and desires of people.
It’s this twisting that has resulted in the FDA’s making outrageously absurd statements, such as claiming that Cheerios and walnuts quite literally become drugs simply because of health claims made for them.”
A related concern is that laws and regulations that are enacted in Europe often influence US policy—and a negative outcome over there is a dangerous precedent that could be adopted here at home. So preserving access in the EU is absolutely critical to our own health freedoms.
Our colleagues at the Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl), together with the European Benefyt Foundation (EBF), have established a joint working group to coordinate their response to this issue. They plan a three-pronged attack:
1. Force a judicial review of THMPD as being an unsuitable vehicle for assessing traditional medicines. Not a single Ayurvedic or traditional Chinese medicine product has been registered under it. This will be expensive—please see the ANH website about how you can help - at http://www.anh-europe.org/about-us.
2. Change the EU food supplement regulations. The current regulations say that herbal products previously sold as food supplements are to be reclassified as medicines; a food or herb preparation is considered “novel” (and thus banned from sale) if it cannot be proved that one or more of its ingredients had been used significantly in the EU before May 1997; and health claims made by many herbal products are banned, limiting consumer choice.
3. Facilitate a new regulatory framework for traditional medicinal products to replace THMPD and expand its scope. This would regulate not only over-the-counter herbal medicines, but practitioner-prescribed and pharmacy-dispensed supplements as well. The European Benefyt Foundation has been working to develop such a framework for over a year.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
40 UK children killed by MMR – and the true picture could be 10 times worse
Now it's beginning to leak out ... The Sunday Times reported
Forty children have died after a routine vaccination such as MMR and 2,100 more have suffered a serious reaction, UK health authorities have been forced to disclose this week – and these figures are just the tip of the iceberg.
Two of the vaccinated children have been left with permanent brain damage, and 1500 others have suffered neurological reactions, including 11 cases of brain inflammation and 13 cases of epilepsy and coma. Overall, there have been more than 2,100 adverse reactions to a childhood vaccine in the UK in the last seven years.
The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) was forced to reveal the figures following a request from a journalist under freedom of information legislation.
The true picture is likely to be far worse. The MHRA cases are only those that doctors have reported; if the doctor does not believe the vaccine has caused the reaction, he will not report it. It is suspected that just 10 per cent of all deaths and reactions from vaccines are ever reported; if so, this means that 400 children have died from a vaccine and 21,000 have suffered an adverse reaction in the UK alone. The true situation will be far worse in countries such as the US where childhood vaccination is compulsory.
Last month, the UK government was forced by a court to pay damages to a mother whose son was left with severe brain damage after an MMR vaccination. Another 500 similar cases are currently going through the UK courts.
These figures represent a major setback in the relationship between doctors and parents. Most parents have accepted the reassurances of doctors and health authorities that the vaccines are safe, and that they are doing the best for their child and the community.
(Source: Sunday Times, October 24, 2010).
If you were sane and Minister for Health wouldn't you on receiving the above info immediately call a moratorium on the MMR vaccine? Would it take you even 10 secs to make that call? Just how much "collateral damage" does it take before our public servants and doctors do the right thing? Would one of their own children dying convince them? The saddest part about all this is there are books and books out there spelling out the known dangers of these vaccines, but the hierarchy of the orthodox medical profession just doesn't want to know. Time for a new broom, plus some good old fashioned naming and shaming.
And have a look at http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2010/10/flu-vaccine-over-3000-miscarriages.html also
Forty children have died after a routine vaccination such as MMR and 2,100 more have suffered a serious reaction, UK health authorities have been forced to disclose this week – and these figures are just the tip of the iceberg.
Two of the vaccinated children have been left with permanent brain damage, and 1500 others have suffered neurological reactions, including 11 cases of brain inflammation and 13 cases of epilepsy and coma. Overall, there have been more than 2,100 adverse reactions to a childhood vaccine in the UK in the last seven years.
The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) was forced to reveal the figures following a request from a journalist under freedom of information legislation.
The true picture is likely to be far worse. The MHRA cases are only those that doctors have reported; if the doctor does not believe the vaccine has caused the reaction, he will not report it. It is suspected that just 10 per cent of all deaths and reactions from vaccines are ever reported; if so, this means that 400 children have died from a vaccine and 21,000 have suffered an adverse reaction in the UK alone. The true situation will be far worse in countries such as the US where childhood vaccination is compulsory.
Last month, the UK government was forced by a court to pay damages to a mother whose son was left with severe brain damage after an MMR vaccination. Another 500 similar cases are currently going through the UK courts.
These figures represent a major setback in the relationship between doctors and parents. Most parents have accepted the reassurances of doctors and health authorities that the vaccines are safe, and that they are doing the best for their child and the community.
(Source: Sunday Times, October 24, 2010).
If you were sane and Minister for Health wouldn't you on receiving the above info immediately call a moratorium on the MMR vaccine? Would it take you even 10 secs to make that call? Just how much "collateral damage" does it take before our public servants and doctors do the right thing? Would one of their own children dying convince them? The saddest part about all this is there are books and books out there spelling out the known dangers of these vaccines, but the hierarchy of the orthodox medical profession just doesn't want to know. Time for a new broom, plus some good old fashioned naming and shaming.
And have a look at http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2010/10/flu-vaccine-over-3000-miscarriages.html also
Thursday, 7 October 2010
50 Homeopathy Blogs Worth Reading
At http://www.mastersinpublichealth.net/50-homeopathy-blogs-worth-reading/ you'll find someone has already done the arduous task of compiling loads of good sites related to homeopathy. Well worth a browse.
Friday, 24 September 2010
MMR jab resulted in autism symptoms says US court awarding high compensation
The splendid WDDTY emag reports
Childhood vaccines are linked to autism - and here's $20m to prove it
15 September 2010
Vaccines we give to our children are definitively linked to autism. A US court has this week awarded a family a payment of up to $20m as compensation for their daughter who suffered autism after she was given multiple vaccines, including the MMR. The parents of Hannah Poling, now a 13-year-old girl, will receive an immediate $1.5m compensation payment followed by annual sums of $500,000 to pay for her care. The award could easily reach $20m, say prosecutors. Hannah was a normal and healthy child until she was given five vaccinations, including the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) shot, in 2000. Her health declined rapidly and she developed fevers, stopped eating, didn’t respond to stimulus, and started to display symptoms of autism, her parents said. Although the US government accepted liability in 2007, the settlement figure has only recently been agreed. Pro-vaccine groups are quick to point out that Hannah’s is a special case, and that it doesn’t prove an MMR-autism link. They say that Hannah suffered from a rare mitochrondrial disorder that predisposed her to autism. The condition was the result of the vaccine, but was not caused by it, they say. However, there are around 4,800 other vaccine-damage cases waiting to be heard in US courts and, as Time magazine once suggested, it’s not unreasonable to assume that some of the other children could also have Hannah’s same underlying problem. (Source: CBS News, September 9, 2010)
Well, to anyone with half a brain and at least one ear it's been obvious for years that multiple vaccine jabs taken over a short period, or "multi-vaccines" (many vaccines in one jab like the MMR or DPT), are in themselves such a violent assault on the immune system compared with a single vaccine that they are likely to have awful side effects for a percentage of the recipients. That's not to say that I approve even of single vaccines in most cases; many vaccines, for more people than realise it, come at a high price down the road (permanently lowered general immune system), as well as at best conferring only a temporary protection for some of those jabbed.
Any chance of the troglodytes in the BMA conceding that anytime soon and apologising to Dr Andrew Wakefield for hounding him for so many years? Not an earthly.
Oh, and did the statement above - "(the autism) condition was the result of the vaccine, but was not caused by it" - get a hollow laugh from you? That sort of wordsmithing generally comes from a law school or political spinmaster training.
This all comes in the same week as we hear that the UK medical system is planning to use up unwanted stocks of its untested swine flu vaccine on the elderly this winter. The same stuff that contains thiosermal, a mercury-based preservative which GPs practice staff said patients reported to have "caused headaches, sleeplessness and stomach cramps" (and how many not immediately obvious other disorders?)last winter. Come on, the UK's GPs. Take some time to read up about the poisons inside vaccines, and how the stats reveal conclusively that due to better hygiene the diseases being targeted were already largely on their way out BEFORE those vaccines were introduced.
Childhood vaccines are linked to autism - and here's $20m to prove it
15 September 2010
Vaccines we give to our children are definitively linked to autism. A US court has this week awarded a family a payment of up to $20m as compensation for their daughter who suffered autism after she was given multiple vaccines, including the MMR. The parents of Hannah Poling, now a 13-year-old girl, will receive an immediate $1.5m compensation payment followed by annual sums of $500,000 to pay for her care. The award could easily reach $20m, say prosecutors. Hannah was a normal and healthy child until she was given five vaccinations, including the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) shot, in 2000. Her health declined rapidly and she developed fevers, stopped eating, didn’t respond to stimulus, and started to display symptoms of autism, her parents said. Although the US government accepted liability in 2007, the settlement figure has only recently been agreed. Pro-vaccine groups are quick to point out that Hannah’s is a special case, and that it doesn’t prove an MMR-autism link. They say that Hannah suffered from a rare mitochrondrial disorder that predisposed her to autism. The condition was the result of the vaccine, but was not caused by it, they say. However, there are around 4,800 other vaccine-damage cases waiting to be heard in US courts and, as Time magazine once suggested, it’s not unreasonable to assume that some of the other children could also have Hannah’s same underlying problem. (Source: CBS News, September 9, 2010)
Well, to anyone with half a brain and at least one ear it's been obvious for years that multiple vaccine jabs taken over a short period, or "multi-vaccines" (many vaccines in one jab like the MMR or DPT), are in themselves such a violent assault on the immune system compared with a single vaccine that they are likely to have awful side effects for a percentage of the recipients. That's not to say that I approve even of single vaccines in most cases; many vaccines, for more people than realise it, come at a high price down the road (permanently lowered general immune system), as well as at best conferring only a temporary protection for some of those jabbed.
Any chance of the troglodytes in the BMA conceding that anytime soon and apologising to Dr Andrew Wakefield for hounding him for so many years? Not an earthly.
Oh, and did the statement above - "(the autism) condition was the result of the vaccine, but was not caused by it" - get a hollow laugh from you? That sort of wordsmithing generally comes from a law school or political spinmaster training.
This all comes in the same week as we hear that the UK medical system is planning to use up unwanted stocks of its untested swine flu vaccine on the elderly this winter. The same stuff that contains thiosermal, a mercury-based preservative which GPs practice staff said patients reported to have "caused headaches, sleeplessness and stomach cramps" (and how many not immediately obvious other disorders?)last winter. Come on, the UK's GPs. Take some time to read up about the poisons inside vaccines, and how the stats reveal conclusively that due to better hygiene the diseases being targeted were already largely on their way out BEFORE those vaccines were introduced.
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Unsafe Vaccines - recent news on MMR and HPV vaccines
The WDDTY magazine recently reported the following
MMR vaccine isn't safe after all, UK government forced to concede
01 September 2010
After years of reassuring parents about the safety of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, the UK government has finally had to concede that it can have serious side effects. A UK court has ruled that the vaccine caused severe brain damage in a boy, now aged 18, and has ordered the government to pay compensation. The ruling brings to an end a lengthy campaign by the boy’s mother, Jackie Fletcher, who created the pressure group JABS to help other parents win compensation for their vaccine-damaged children. Jackie’s son, Robert, was just 13 months old when he had the MMR vaccination. From being a healthy baby who was developing normally, he started to suffer epileptic fits and became unresponsive. He is now severely disabled. Jackie and her family have been awarded £91,000 in compensation. The judgement also sends out hope to the thousands of parents in the UK who are also fighting for compensation. (Source: Sunday Times, August 29, 2010).
-------------------------
Parents want HPV vaccine banned after it wrecked health of their daughters
01 September 2010
A group of American mothers wants the HPV vaccine Gardasil banned after it ruined the health of their teenage daughters. The ‘safe’ vaccine – supposed to protect against cervical cancer – has harmed thousands of girls and a small number have died directly after having the shot. The girls have suffered a range of serious side effects, from seizures, strokes, auto-immune disorders, chronic fatigue, hair loss, headaches, heart pain, weak muscles, vision and hearing loss and paralysis.
Marian Greene, whose daughter was affected by Gardasil, has set up a website – http://www.truthaboutgardasil.org – where other mothers can document the side effects suffered by their daughters.
One of the mothers, who sits on the group’s board, has said her own daughter died after being given the vaccine. Merck, Gardasil’s manufacturer, maintains it is safe and effective. Since the US’s drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), approved the vaccine in 2006, around 40 million doses have been administered to teenage girls around the world. Merck now want to vaccinate teenage boys as well – while Truth About Gardasil wants it banned. (Source: The Truth About Gardasil; http://www.truthaboutgardasil.org)
MMR vaccine isn't safe after all, UK government forced to concede
01 September 2010
After years of reassuring parents about the safety of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, the UK government has finally had to concede that it can have serious side effects. A UK court has ruled that the vaccine caused severe brain damage in a boy, now aged 18, and has ordered the government to pay compensation. The ruling brings to an end a lengthy campaign by the boy’s mother, Jackie Fletcher, who created the pressure group JABS to help other parents win compensation for their vaccine-damaged children. Jackie’s son, Robert, was just 13 months old when he had the MMR vaccination. From being a healthy baby who was developing normally, he started to suffer epileptic fits and became unresponsive. He is now severely disabled. Jackie and her family have been awarded £91,000 in compensation. The judgement also sends out hope to the thousands of parents in the UK who are also fighting for compensation. (Source: Sunday Times, August 29, 2010).
-------------------------
Parents want HPV vaccine banned after it wrecked health of their daughters
01 September 2010
A group of American mothers wants the HPV vaccine Gardasil banned after it ruined the health of their teenage daughters. The ‘safe’ vaccine – supposed to protect against cervical cancer – has harmed thousands of girls and a small number have died directly after having the shot. The girls have suffered a range of serious side effects, from seizures, strokes, auto-immune disorders, chronic fatigue, hair loss, headaches, heart pain, weak muscles, vision and hearing loss and paralysis.
Marian Greene, whose daughter was affected by Gardasil, has set up a website – http://www.truthaboutgardasil.org – where other mothers can document the side effects suffered by their daughters.
One of the mothers, who sits on the group’s board, has said her own daughter died after being given the vaccine. Merck, Gardasil’s manufacturer, maintains it is safe and effective. Since the US’s drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), approved the vaccine in 2006, around 40 million doses have been administered to teenage girls around the world. Merck now want to vaccinate teenage boys as well – while Truth About Gardasil wants it banned. (Source: The Truth About Gardasil; http://www.truthaboutgardasil.org)
Friday, 21 May 2010
Exclusive interview with Dr. Blaylock on chemicals (excitotoxins) in your food
There’s a 10 page conversation that’s well worth reading between Mike Adams of NaturalNews www.NaturalNews.com and Dr Blaylock at http://downloads.truthpublishing.com/Aspartame_Truth.pdf.
It’ll make you understand what can go wrong inside you when you eat too much food containing glutamate, and how this may be leading to heart arythmia and sudden (“unexplained”) cardiac death, to autism, Alzheimers, Parkinsons and other problems. So as well as actively avoiding eating aspartame and Monosodiumglutamate (MSG), you should be looking at avoiding soy products, “hydrolysed protein” and probably a good few other things that you aren’t aware of that contain too much glutamate.
It’ll make you understand what can go wrong inside you when you eat too much food containing glutamate, and how this may be leading to heart arythmia and sudden (“unexplained”) cardiac death, to autism, Alzheimers, Parkinsons and other problems. So as well as actively avoiding eating aspartame and Monosodiumglutamate (MSG), you should be looking at avoiding soy products, “hydrolysed protein” and probably a good few other things that you aren’t aware of that contain too much glutamate.
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Pig virus contaminates rotavirus vaccines
Take a look at this report. Still happy to have the vaccine and rely on the manufacturer or your health authority to estimate the risks on your behalf?
http://www.naturalnews.com/028832_rotavirus_vaccines_contamination.html
(NaturalNews) Rotavirus vaccines are commonly given to children, and this year's batch of vaccines made by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck are contaminated with a pig virus, the FDA recently discovered. So the FDA called a meeting to determine whether injecting a pig virus into the bodies of young children might be some sort of problem requiring a recall of the vaccines.
Can you guess what conclusion the agency reached? As reported by Reuters, the FDA concluded "...it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo's Rotarix and continue using Merck's Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm..."
In other words, as long as they can bury the evidence and deny any link between vaccines and health problems -- which has been the standard excuse of the FDA for decades -- they can continue to claim the vaccines are safe enough to inject into little children.
Never mind the fact that the pig virus found in the vaccines actually causes a wasting disease in baby pigs, giving them intense diarrhea and causing them to rapidly lose weight. DNA from these viruses was detected in the "master cells" used to make the vaccines.
Suppressing the evidence of harm
An FDA advisory panel said the risk to human health from the viral contamination was only "theoretical." But of course it's easy to claim anything is "theoretical" if you suppress the evidence that it's real. By simply ignoring any reports of neurological side effects from the vaccine, the FDA can always claim there is "no evidence" of harm. Well, no evidence they're willing to accept as real, anyway.
And that's how vaccine science works these days: Suppress any evidence of harm, deny any links between vaccines and neurological problems, then okay practically any viral contamination from any animal and declare it's all safe to be injected directly into the bodies of infants and children.
So much for science, huh? The vaccine industry operates more like a cult than a scientific organization, and anyone who questions the beliefs of their cult is immediately branded a heretic and publicly condemned.
By the way, even though these rotavirus vaccines are contaminated with a pig virus, the companies that make them claim there is "no manufacturing or safety issue" with the vaccines. In other words, this is normal!
Think about that for a moment: The discovery that a vaccine being injected into children is contaminated with a virus from a pig doesn't even result in a product recall! It doesn't raise any red flags! It's just business as usual in the vaccine industry, where DNA from any number of diseased animals is often used in the vaccine formulas.
Last year, rotavirus vaccines earned nearly a billion dollars in revenues for Big Pharma. The risk of a child in the United States actually dying from a rotavirus infection is ridiculously small. What these kids need is good nutrition and vitamin D, not an injection of a questionable vaccine made with pig virus DNA
http://www.naturalnews.com/028832_rotavirus_vaccines_contamination.html
(NaturalNews) Rotavirus vaccines are commonly given to children, and this year's batch of vaccines made by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck are contaminated with a pig virus, the FDA recently discovered. So the FDA called a meeting to determine whether injecting a pig virus into the bodies of young children might be some sort of problem requiring a recall of the vaccines.
Can you guess what conclusion the agency reached? As reported by Reuters, the FDA concluded "...it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo's Rotarix and continue using Merck's Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm..."
In other words, as long as they can bury the evidence and deny any link between vaccines and health problems -- which has been the standard excuse of the FDA for decades -- they can continue to claim the vaccines are safe enough to inject into little children.
Never mind the fact that the pig virus found in the vaccines actually causes a wasting disease in baby pigs, giving them intense diarrhea and causing them to rapidly lose weight. DNA from these viruses was detected in the "master cells" used to make the vaccines.
Suppressing the evidence of harm
An FDA advisory panel said the risk to human health from the viral contamination was only "theoretical." But of course it's easy to claim anything is "theoretical" if you suppress the evidence that it's real. By simply ignoring any reports of neurological side effects from the vaccine, the FDA can always claim there is "no evidence" of harm. Well, no evidence they're willing to accept as real, anyway.
And that's how vaccine science works these days: Suppress any evidence of harm, deny any links between vaccines and neurological problems, then okay practically any viral contamination from any animal and declare it's all safe to be injected directly into the bodies of infants and children.
So much for science, huh? The vaccine industry operates more like a cult than a scientific organization, and anyone who questions the beliefs of their cult is immediately branded a heretic and publicly condemned.
By the way, even though these rotavirus vaccines are contaminated with a pig virus, the companies that make them claim there is "no manufacturing or safety issue" with the vaccines. In other words, this is normal!
Think about that for a moment: The discovery that a vaccine being injected into children is contaminated with a virus from a pig doesn't even result in a product recall! It doesn't raise any red flags! It's just business as usual in the vaccine industry, where DNA from any number of diseased animals is often used in the vaccine formulas.
Last year, rotavirus vaccines earned nearly a billion dollars in revenues for Big Pharma. The risk of a child in the United States actually dying from a rotavirus infection is ridiculously small. What these kids need is good nutrition and vitamin D, not an injection of a questionable vaccine made with pig virus DNA
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Report by President Obama's Cancer Panel on cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicine, personal care products and the environment
http://www.naturalnews.com/028765_environmental_chemicals_cancer.html
(NaturalNews) When a government panel of experts finds the courage to tell the truth about cancer, it's an event so rare that it becomes newsworthy. Late last week, a report from the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) broke ranks with the sick-care cancer establishment and dared to say something that natural health advocates have been warning about for decades: That Americans are "bombarded" with cancer-causing chemicals and radiation, and if we hope to reduce cancer rates, we must eliminate cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products and our work and home environments.
In a directive to President Obama, the report states, "The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives."
When I first read that, I just about fell out of my chair. Government-appointed experts are really saying that there are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water? That simple fact has been vehemently denied by the cancer industry, processed food giants, personal care product companies and of course the fluoride lobby -- all of which insist their chemicals are perfectly safe.
ACS attacks the report
The American Cancer Society, not surprisingly, was quick to bash the report. The ACS is one of the sick-care cancer industry front groups that reinforces consumer ignorance about both the causes and the solutions for cancer. The ACS has, for decades, engaged in what can only be called a "cancer chemical cover-up" with its denials that environmental chemicals cause cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/010244_A...) and (http://www.preventcancer.com/losing...)
Even as cancer experts like Dr Sam Epstein have been warning about carcinogens in cosmetics, personal care products and foods (http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers), the ACS has ridiculously pretended such threats don't exist. And just to top it off, the ACS has been warning people to stay away from sunlight and become more vitamin D deficient, thereby increasing cancer rates even further.
So it's no surprise that the ACS doesn't like this PCP report that dares to state the obvious: There are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water! "The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures," the report writes.
The great chemical denial
Joining the ACS in criticizing the report is the American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing the very same chemical companies that are poisoning our world right now. Remarkably, the ACS and ACC are on the same side here, denying any link between chemicals and cancer. They insist that all those chemicals in your processed foods, cosmetics, antibacterial soaps, shampoos, fragrance products, home cleaning solvents, pesticides, herbicides and other similar products are all safe for you! Eat up, suckers!
Don't worry about the chemicals, they say. Cancer is just a matter of bad luck. There's nothing you can do about it. So stop trying.
That's their message, you see, and it's a message that plays right into the hands of the cancer industry: Don't prevent your cancer and when you get sick, they'll make a fortune off your disease and suffering.
The radiation threat from medical imaging
The PCP report also takes a strong stand on the cancer risks caused by medical imaging radiation. It actually says, "People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors."
I remember receiving hate mail from cancer industry shills when I once made the same statement in an article about mammograms and CT scans. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026113_m...) And yet that statement was factually quite correct: If you undergo several medical imaging tests in a hospital today, you can very easily receive just as much radiation as a person standing a few miles away from the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshoma during World War II. This is not an exaggeration. It is a simple fact of physics and the law of inverse squares. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invers...)
The environmental dangers of pharmaceuticals
Here at NaturalNews, I've been talking about the environmental pollution of pharmaceuticals for years. The fact that pharmaceutical chemicals are flushed down the drain and end up in the water supply is the "dirty little secret" of the drug industry. The problem has gone virtually unrecognized by the entire mainstream medical system... they just pretend it doesn't exist.
Yet this PCP report takes aim at it by saying: "Pharmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."
It's about time somebody in Washington stood up and challenged the pharmaceutical industry on the environmental effects of its toxic chemicals. HRT drugs, antidepressants, painkillers and many other types of drugs are right now polluting our oceans and waterways. You can hardly catch a fish near any major U.S. city now that isn't contaminated with pharmaceuticals.
But don't expect anyone to give credence to this warning. This entire PCP report is being largely ignored in Washington (and attacked by Big Business).
What the report really says
The President's Cancer Panel is headed by:
LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., Chair
Charles R. Drew Professor of Surgery
Howard University College of Medicine
Washington, DC 20059
Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D.
Vivian L. Smith Chair and Professor Emerita
The University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX 77030
These two people deserve your support for having the courage to publish a report that challenges the status quo of the corrupt cancer industry. So if you wish, send them a thank-you email for their work.
The report is entitled, "REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK - What We Can Do Now"
Here are some of the highlights from the report:
• In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.
• The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.
• However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.
• Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those likely to be encountered by humans. These data -- and the exposure limits extrapolated from them -- fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur only at very low doses.
• Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.
• While all Americans now carry many foreign chemicals in their bodies, women often have higher levels of many toxic and hormone-disrupting substances than do men. Some of these chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding.
• The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.
• Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the water supply.
• The use of cell phones and other wireless technology is of great concern, particularly since these devices are being used regularly by ever larger and younger segments of the population.
• Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. The increase in medical radiation has nearly doubled the total average effective radiation dose per individual in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tests alone now contribute 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population.
• Many referring physicians, radiology professionals, and the public are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime. People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.
• Hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians in the United States received significant radiation doses as a result of their participation in nuclear weapons testing and supporting occupations and industries, including nuclear fuel and weapons production, and uranium mining, milling, and ore transport. Hundreds of thousands more were irradiated at levels sufficient to cause cancer and other diseases.
• Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born "pre-polluted." There is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children's health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children's environmental health.
• Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year.
• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account.
• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account. [Editor's note: In other words, people should read NaturalNews! We've been doing this for years!]
Sources
Read the report yourself right here:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory...
(NaturalNews) When a government panel of experts finds the courage to tell the truth about cancer, it's an event so rare that it becomes newsworthy. Late last week, a report from the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) broke ranks with the sick-care cancer establishment and dared to say something that natural health advocates have been warning about for decades: That Americans are "bombarded" with cancer-causing chemicals and radiation, and if we hope to reduce cancer rates, we must eliminate cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products and our work and home environments.
In a directive to President Obama, the report states, "The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives."
When I first read that, I just about fell out of my chair. Government-appointed experts are really saying that there are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water? That simple fact has been vehemently denied by the cancer industry, processed food giants, personal care product companies and of course the fluoride lobby -- all of which insist their chemicals are perfectly safe.
ACS attacks the report
The American Cancer Society, not surprisingly, was quick to bash the report. The ACS is one of the sick-care cancer industry front groups that reinforces consumer ignorance about both the causes and the solutions for cancer. The ACS has, for decades, engaged in what can only be called a "cancer chemical cover-up" with its denials that environmental chemicals cause cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/010244_A...) and (http://www.preventcancer.com/losing...)
Even as cancer experts like Dr Sam Epstein have been warning about carcinogens in cosmetics, personal care products and foods (http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers), the ACS has ridiculously pretended such threats don't exist. And just to top it off, the ACS has been warning people to stay away from sunlight and become more vitamin D deficient, thereby increasing cancer rates even further.
So it's no surprise that the ACS doesn't like this PCP report that dares to state the obvious: There are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water! "The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures," the report writes.
The great chemical denial
Joining the ACS in criticizing the report is the American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing the very same chemical companies that are poisoning our world right now. Remarkably, the ACS and ACC are on the same side here, denying any link between chemicals and cancer. They insist that all those chemicals in your processed foods, cosmetics, antibacterial soaps, shampoos, fragrance products, home cleaning solvents, pesticides, herbicides and other similar products are all safe for you! Eat up, suckers!
Don't worry about the chemicals, they say. Cancer is just a matter of bad luck. There's nothing you can do about it. So stop trying.
That's their message, you see, and it's a message that plays right into the hands of the cancer industry: Don't prevent your cancer and when you get sick, they'll make a fortune off your disease and suffering.
The radiation threat from medical imaging
The PCP report also takes a strong stand on the cancer risks caused by medical imaging radiation. It actually says, "People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors."
I remember receiving hate mail from cancer industry shills when I once made the same statement in an article about mammograms and CT scans. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026113_m...) And yet that statement was factually quite correct: If you undergo several medical imaging tests in a hospital today, you can very easily receive just as much radiation as a person standing a few miles away from the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshoma during World War II. This is not an exaggeration. It is a simple fact of physics and the law of inverse squares. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invers...)
The environmental dangers of pharmaceuticals
Here at NaturalNews, I've been talking about the environmental pollution of pharmaceuticals for years. The fact that pharmaceutical chemicals are flushed down the drain and end up in the water supply is the "dirty little secret" of the drug industry. The problem has gone virtually unrecognized by the entire mainstream medical system... they just pretend it doesn't exist.
Yet this PCP report takes aim at it by saying: "Pharmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."
It's about time somebody in Washington stood up and challenged the pharmaceutical industry on the environmental effects of its toxic chemicals. HRT drugs, antidepressants, painkillers and many other types of drugs are right now polluting our oceans and waterways. You can hardly catch a fish near any major U.S. city now that isn't contaminated with pharmaceuticals.
But don't expect anyone to give credence to this warning. This entire PCP report is being largely ignored in Washington (and attacked by Big Business).
What the report really says
The President's Cancer Panel is headed by:
LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., Chair
Charles R. Drew Professor of Surgery
Howard University College of Medicine
Washington, DC 20059
Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D.
Vivian L. Smith Chair and Professor Emerita
The University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX 77030
These two people deserve your support for having the courage to publish a report that challenges the status quo of the corrupt cancer industry. So if you wish, send them a thank-you email for their work.
The report is entitled, "REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK - What We Can Do Now"
Here are some of the highlights from the report:
• In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.
• The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.
• However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.
• Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those likely to be encountered by humans. These data -- and the exposure limits extrapolated from them -- fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur only at very low doses.
• Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.
• While all Americans now carry many foreign chemicals in their bodies, women often have higher levels of many toxic and hormone-disrupting substances than do men. Some of these chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding.
• The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.
• Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the water supply.
• The use of cell phones and other wireless technology is of great concern, particularly since these devices are being used regularly by ever larger and younger segments of the population.
• Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. The increase in medical radiation has nearly doubled the total average effective radiation dose per individual in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tests alone now contribute 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population.
• Many referring physicians, radiology professionals, and the public are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime. People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.
• Hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians in the United States received significant radiation doses as a result of their participation in nuclear weapons testing and supporting occupations and industries, including nuclear fuel and weapons production, and uranium mining, milling, and ore transport. Hundreds of thousands more were irradiated at levels sufficient to cause cancer and other diseases.
• Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born "pre-polluted." There is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children's health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children's environmental health.
• Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year.
• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account.
• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account. [Editor's note: In other words, people should read NaturalNews! We've been doing this for years!]
Sources
Read the report yourself right here:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory...
Thursday, 15 April 2010
How Safe are the Drugs that our medical profession uses?
For those interested in checking on how safe, or otherwise, conventional drugs are take a look at some of the articles on http://dangerousprescriptiondrugs.weebly.com/index.html e.g.
Cancer Vaccine Programme Suspended After Four Girls Die
Prescription Drug Deaths Increase Dramatically
Confidential report reveals: Big Pharma trying to stop long-term safety studies of ADHD drugs (Ritalin, Concerta) A confidential document, now made public by a Swedish court, tells how pharmaceutical companies (calling themselves the “Consortium”) are trying to stop long-term safety studies of ADHD drugs (Ritalin, Concerta)
and many more
Cancer Vaccine Programme Suspended After Four Girls Die
Prescription Drug Deaths Increase Dramatically
Confidential report reveals: Big Pharma trying to stop long-term safety studies of ADHD drugs (Ritalin, Concerta) A confidential document, now made public by a Swedish court, tells how pharmaceutical companies (calling themselves the “Consortium”) are trying to stop long-term safety studies of ADHD drugs (Ritalin, Concerta)
and many more
Saturday, 10 April 2010
In Defence of Homeopathy - Studies Roundup
Robert Medhurst in his article "In Defence of Homeopathy" cites scores of helpful studies and statistics. These can be read in the March edition of the ezine Homeopathy for Everyone at http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/in-defense-of-homeopathy/
For me, however, the bottom line is that people have been being cured gently by homeopathic treatment for over 200 years. Like herbal treatment, it has never gone away - because it works. And if something works, you should use it. Sometimes the disease treated is too advanced for homeopathics to restore the body to health, but often even in such cases it can palliate the symptoms. One thing one can say: no homeopathic remedy has ever had to be withdrawn because of its side effects.
For me, however, the bottom line is that people have been being cured gently by homeopathic treatment for over 200 years. Like herbal treatment, it has never gone away - because it works. And if something works, you should use it. Sometimes the disease treated is too advanced for homeopathics to restore the body to health, but often even in such cases it can palliate the symptoms. One thing one can say: no homeopathic remedy has ever had to be withdrawn because of its side effects.
Monday, 5 April 2010
The unavoidable demise of the "chemical" medicine model
I make no apologies for continuing to bleat on about how important it is for everyone not to abdicate responsibility for health to their doctor, or even to their natural healthcare practitioner. The problem of course is that even with the amazing facility of the worldwide web it takes a little time. But I have learned that everyone must come in their own time – often very slowly - to that point where they get so browned off by the rubbish assurances, and often outright lies, they get from “officialdom” that (maybe with someone they trust at their elbow) they get stuck in themselves and research their own best route back to health. Some, of course, never get to that point.
But it’s not just they themselves who are to blame for the outcome. It’s also the official healthcare system in this country, which largely depends upon a cupboard full of toxic chemicals, and processes, and expensive ones at that, to try and help their patients. I can see that if you are a professional who has spent many years getting qualified and needs to earn a living like everyone else, then even if you realise that the train you are on has frequently been steaming down tracks which will never truly get you and your patient to the destination you both desire and may even steam you over a precipice, it can be well nigh impossible for you to grab the driver to stop the train and find one that is going to, or nearer to, the right destination. But sooner or later, it is the only solution if you are not to find yourself at the bottom of the gulch.
The medical “chemical” paradigm is currently staggering and floundering about like a sick man on his last legs. Anyone standing on the sidelines with a modicum of medical knowledge, and no vested interest in the current system, has seen that clearly for years now. The untold billions of taxpayers’ money that have been misguidedly spent in the last 100 years in dead-end “chemical” and other toxic processes has all been wasted, and as usual there will be no accountability, though there are plenty of selfserving bureaucrats, politicians and medical professionals who thoroughly deserve the red hot poker treatment.
The fact is that, as physics showed many years ago, a humanbeing, is not just a chemistry experiment. At our core – or at least the core that we can currently observe with the most sophisticated instruments scientists have been able to devise – we are each a whirling mass of energy; a universe of fundamental particles and charges which, in ways we have no grasp over whatsoever, comes together in each of us to create and animate the conscious, living, physical creature that we can experience on this planet with our 5 senses. So the sensitives who through the ages have suggested this, maybe using strange language and words like chakra which failed to resonate with ordinary people, have been at least more right all along than their fellows.
The corollary, however unpalatable it may be to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the “chemistry experiment” level of modern medicine, is that many natural healthcare disciplines have developed along lines which, in many situations, are much more likely to help their patients back to optimum health from their ailments than conventional medicine. Homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, naturopathy are just a few of those where patient cure and satisfaction is way above that which can honestly be claimed using conventional medical practices.
I have no illusions about what is going to happen, sooner or later, because I have seen it happen from the inside when I worked in industry, and I have also read a bit about “catastrophe theory”. It is not pretty, and a lot of people and their families get hurt.
In a large company with a successful product but many competitors one eventually reaches a point where, unless one is able to reinvent the business one is in and evolve, it is not possible annually to sell more of that product in your marketplace than you did the year before. However, the ego of the Chief Executive, whose position and rewards ultimately depend upon the stock markets’ analysis of whether the company is moving forward or stagnating, which analysis in turn is derived from the quarter’s and yearly Net Sales and profitability figures and a few other inputs, does not allow him to accept that reality. Instead, he issues orders to his subordinates that each quarter’s Net Sales figures have to be, say, 10% higher than that quarter in the preceding year, or the Sales Manager will be replaced. He and his Financial Officer then see what they can do to massage the profitability figures without alarming their auditors, to ensure that all on the surface continues to look good to outsiders.
Meanwhile the Sales Manager is forced to approach his suppliers and do deals with them, something that is termed “loading” the trade before the end of each quarter. Eventually, and sometimes it can take years for the crunch point to come, the trade is so saturated with product, that it rebels. The company then takes a bath on that quarter’s figures, and the truth comes out into the public domain. Everyone inside the company (and by analogy – you can see where I am heading - everyone inside the conventional medical profession) already knew that the train was headed for the precipice, but it needed the shareholders to get together and say Enough is Enough and fire the Chief Executive. The company is then broken up and sold, liquidated, or if lucky reshaped under new management. Many innocent insiders get hurt because of the ego of one or a few people at the top. It happens every day in business.
Catastrophe theory predicts that when the tipping point comes, it hits like a tornado. Afterwards one finds oneself at the bottom of the gulch, not like in the cartoons somehow saved in midair by a shrub growing ten feet below the precipice.
Catastrophe can only be averted by the business or profession evolving sufficiently before the tipping point is reached. And in a profession, to do that, it needs the hierarchy, or generally, a subset of younger members, to have the integrity and honesty to publicly get together with its stakeholders and other professions involved in the direction where the new paradigm is likely to lie. In our case, stakeholders would mean, non-partisan representatives of the general public and the natural healthcare disciplines which already treat humanbeings holistically as energetic bodies. Conventional medicine can learn from them, and in the long run the nation’s health and pocket will benefit immeasurably.
But it’s not just they themselves who are to blame for the outcome. It’s also the official healthcare system in this country, which largely depends upon a cupboard full of toxic chemicals, and processes, and expensive ones at that, to try and help their patients. I can see that if you are a professional who has spent many years getting qualified and needs to earn a living like everyone else, then even if you realise that the train you are on has frequently been steaming down tracks which will never truly get you and your patient to the destination you both desire and may even steam you over a precipice, it can be well nigh impossible for you to grab the driver to stop the train and find one that is going to, or nearer to, the right destination. But sooner or later, it is the only solution if you are not to find yourself at the bottom of the gulch.
The medical “chemical” paradigm is currently staggering and floundering about like a sick man on his last legs. Anyone standing on the sidelines with a modicum of medical knowledge, and no vested interest in the current system, has seen that clearly for years now. The untold billions of taxpayers’ money that have been misguidedly spent in the last 100 years in dead-end “chemical” and other toxic processes has all been wasted, and as usual there will be no accountability, though there are plenty of selfserving bureaucrats, politicians and medical professionals who thoroughly deserve the red hot poker treatment.
The fact is that, as physics showed many years ago, a humanbeing, is not just a chemistry experiment. At our core – or at least the core that we can currently observe with the most sophisticated instruments scientists have been able to devise – we are each a whirling mass of energy; a universe of fundamental particles and charges which, in ways we have no grasp over whatsoever, comes together in each of us to create and animate the conscious, living, physical creature that we can experience on this planet with our 5 senses. So the sensitives who through the ages have suggested this, maybe using strange language and words like chakra which failed to resonate with ordinary people, have been at least more right all along than their fellows.
The corollary, however unpalatable it may be to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the “chemistry experiment” level of modern medicine, is that many natural healthcare disciplines have developed along lines which, in many situations, are much more likely to help their patients back to optimum health from their ailments than conventional medicine. Homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, naturopathy are just a few of those where patient cure and satisfaction is way above that which can honestly be claimed using conventional medical practices.
I have no illusions about what is going to happen, sooner or later, because I have seen it happen from the inside when I worked in industry, and I have also read a bit about “catastrophe theory”. It is not pretty, and a lot of people and their families get hurt.
In a large company with a successful product but many competitors one eventually reaches a point where, unless one is able to reinvent the business one is in and evolve, it is not possible annually to sell more of that product in your marketplace than you did the year before. However, the ego of the Chief Executive, whose position and rewards ultimately depend upon the stock markets’ analysis of whether the company is moving forward or stagnating, which analysis in turn is derived from the quarter’s and yearly Net Sales and profitability figures and a few other inputs, does not allow him to accept that reality. Instead, he issues orders to his subordinates that each quarter’s Net Sales figures have to be, say, 10% higher than that quarter in the preceding year, or the Sales Manager will be replaced. He and his Financial Officer then see what they can do to massage the profitability figures without alarming their auditors, to ensure that all on the surface continues to look good to outsiders.
Meanwhile the Sales Manager is forced to approach his suppliers and do deals with them, something that is termed “loading” the trade before the end of each quarter. Eventually, and sometimes it can take years for the crunch point to come, the trade is so saturated with product, that it rebels. The company then takes a bath on that quarter’s figures, and the truth comes out into the public domain. Everyone inside the company (and by analogy – you can see where I am heading - everyone inside the conventional medical profession) already knew that the train was headed for the precipice, but it needed the shareholders to get together and say Enough is Enough and fire the Chief Executive. The company is then broken up and sold, liquidated, or if lucky reshaped under new management. Many innocent insiders get hurt because of the ego of one or a few people at the top. It happens every day in business.
Catastrophe theory predicts that when the tipping point comes, it hits like a tornado. Afterwards one finds oneself at the bottom of the gulch, not like in the cartoons somehow saved in midair by a shrub growing ten feet below the precipice.
Catastrophe can only be averted by the business or profession evolving sufficiently before the tipping point is reached. And in a profession, to do that, it needs the hierarchy, or generally, a subset of younger members, to have the integrity and honesty to publicly get together with its stakeholders and other professions involved in the direction where the new paradigm is likely to lie. In our case, stakeholders would mean, non-partisan representatives of the general public and the natural healthcare disciplines which already treat humanbeings holistically as energetic bodies. Conventional medicine can learn from them, and in the long run the nation’s health and pocket will benefit immeasurably.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
Herd Immunity Myth (cont)
My labelling of the “herd immunity” from vaccination concept as a MYTH has been noticed by the opposition. A blogger has written in asserting
“The concept of herd immunity makes perfect sense. If enough people get vaccinated in a community, the less chance the virus spreads to those who are not immunized.
There is also the benefit that higher rates of immunization mean less chance that the virus will mutate.”
This perfectly illustrates the mentality of the “denialists”, the give-a-vaccine-for-everything brigade. Even where they have had their noses rubbed in the facts (vaccinated communities can still contract the disease - see my last post), they continue on auto assertion mode. In fact in relation, for example, to measles according to the World Health Organisation the odds are about 15 times greater that measles will strike those vaccinated against the disease than those who are left alone [1].
It’s for this reason that I heavily moderate comments to my blog because I didn’t start it to give the oxygen of publicity to those who will argue black is white till the cows come home, regardless of the counter-evidence given them, or who just want to propagate pernicious views that, for example, the health of the nation is dependent on everyone being forcefed, or injected, with xyz vaccine or that all drinking water should be fluoridated “for your own good” (as if they knew!). Many of them clearly delight in wasting the good guys’ (holistic therapists) time requesting “explanations” though they are not interested in the answer, and they seem to come in one of two categories: either “useful idiots” doing Big Pharma’s job for them, or criminals (in my book) who are intentionally spreading misinformation, and maybe getting paid for it.
As for the second assertion, “higher rates of immunization mean less chance that the virus will mutate”, that is not, I’m afraid, true. It is known now that when vaccines attack only some strains of a disease, other strains gain prominence. The disease becomes more virulent and people who are not normally susceptible to the ailment are infected. Thus a pneumococcal vaccine designed to protect against several strains of the disease has resulted in more dangerous non-vaccine strains of pneumococcal disease replacing strains targeted by the vaccine. Over-use of any vaccine, or drug as even lay people are aware in the case of antibiotics, tends to have a significant and unforeseen downside.
Finally, let’s remind ourselves again
1. no vaccination ever achieves immunisation, by which I mean 100% protection, forever. Instead, it may result in an unknown level of what we might call semi-protection ranging from 0% to, maybe, 50 % (there’s no way of measuring the latter figure) for just a limited time [2].
2. Whatever limited semi-protection the vaccine may give against a particular virus strain you may never even meet in the rest of your life has to be weighed against the potential for possibly severe adverse effects which may appear many years down the road in a compromised immune system. Your vaccine virus will have been incubated in an “unnatural” medium, often a chicken’s embryo (which itself can never be guaranteed sterile), then supposedly inactivated (100%? You can never be sure [3]) with a poison, formaldehyde, then preserved with Thimerosal, a derivative of mercury (a neurological toxin), and finally has further poisons or “nasties” added – possibly polyethylene glycol, polysorbate 80, hydrocortisone, neomycin, polymyxin (antibiotics), etc. If millions of such artificially doctored pathogens, which may or may not be totally inactive, are produced and shot into people, you are going by that very process to increase significantly the risk of creating additional mutations which would never have occurred in nature.
The much safer alternative is to work on boosting your immune system by natural means and not run risks you don’t have to. Google Vitamin D and C especially, which have a very important role to play here. And homeopathic remedies taken as prophylactics will probably give you as good a level of protection as you should need without risking filling your body up with poisons.
[1] Vaccine Safety Manual, Neil Miller p.120
[2] Between 0- 5 years possibly, which depends on the vaccine and the reaction of the particular patient: sometimes antibodies produced in response to the vaccination disappear very rapidly from the body. The pharmaceutical companies' only answer to this is to repeat the vaccination ie “booster” jabs.
[3] See, for example, Jonas Salk’s supposedly “inactivated” polio vaccine which was actually quite virulent. It paralysed and killed many children. Many viruses are incubated in mediums eg monkey parts which already have other infectious agents in them which simply cannot all be detected by currently available scientific methods.
“The concept of herd immunity makes perfect sense. If enough people get vaccinated in a community, the less chance the virus spreads to those who are not immunized.
There is also the benefit that higher rates of immunization mean less chance that the virus will mutate.”
This perfectly illustrates the mentality of the “denialists”, the give-a-vaccine-for-everything brigade. Even where they have had their noses rubbed in the facts (vaccinated communities can still contract the disease - see my last post), they continue on auto assertion mode. In fact in relation, for example, to measles according to the World Health Organisation the odds are about 15 times greater that measles will strike those vaccinated against the disease than those who are left alone [1].
It’s for this reason that I heavily moderate comments to my blog because I didn’t start it to give the oxygen of publicity to those who will argue black is white till the cows come home, regardless of the counter-evidence given them, or who just want to propagate pernicious views that, for example, the health of the nation is dependent on everyone being forcefed, or injected, with xyz vaccine or that all drinking water should be fluoridated “for your own good” (as if they knew!). Many of them clearly delight in wasting the good guys’ (holistic therapists) time requesting “explanations” though they are not interested in the answer, and they seem to come in one of two categories: either “useful idiots” doing Big Pharma’s job for them, or criminals (in my book) who are intentionally spreading misinformation, and maybe getting paid for it.
As for the second assertion, “higher rates of immunization mean less chance that the virus will mutate”, that is not, I’m afraid, true. It is known now that when vaccines attack only some strains of a disease, other strains gain prominence. The disease becomes more virulent and people who are not normally susceptible to the ailment are infected. Thus a pneumococcal vaccine designed to protect against several strains of the disease has resulted in more dangerous non-vaccine strains of pneumococcal disease replacing strains targeted by the vaccine. Over-use of any vaccine, or drug as even lay people are aware in the case of antibiotics, tends to have a significant and unforeseen downside.
Finally, let’s remind ourselves again
1. no vaccination ever achieves immunisation, by which I mean 100% protection, forever. Instead, it may result in an unknown level of what we might call semi-protection ranging from 0% to, maybe, 50 % (there’s no way of measuring the latter figure) for just a limited time [2].
2. Whatever limited semi-protection the vaccine may give against a particular virus strain you may never even meet in the rest of your life has to be weighed against the potential for possibly severe adverse effects which may appear many years down the road in a compromised immune system. Your vaccine virus will have been incubated in an “unnatural” medium, often a chicken’s embryo (which itself can never be guaranteed sterile), then supposedly inactivated (100%? You can never be sure [3]) with a poison, formaldehyde, then preserved with Thimerosal, a derivative of mercury (a neurological toxin), and finally has further poisons or “nasties” added – possibly polyethylene glycol, polysorbate 80, hydrocortisone, neomycin, polymyxin (antibiotics), etc. If millions of such artificially doctored pathogens, which may or may not be totally inactive, are produced and shot into people, you are going by that very process to increase significantly the risk of creating additional mutations which would never have occurred in nature.
The much safer alternative is to work on boosting your immune system by natural means and not run risks you don’t have to. Google Vitamin D and C especially, which have a very important role to play here. And homeopathic remedies taken as prophylactics will probably give you as good a level of protection as you should need without risking filling your body up with poisons.
[1] Vaccine Safety Manual, Neil Miller p.120
[2] Between 0- 5 years possibly, which depends on the vaccine and the reaction of the particular patient: sometimes antibodies produced in response to the vaccination disappear very rapidly from the body. The pharmaceutical companies' only answer to this is to repeat the vaccination ie “booster” jabs.
[3] See, for example, Jonas Salk’s supposedly “inactivated” polio vaccine which was actually quite virulent. It paralysed and killed many children. Many viruses are incubated in mediums eg monkey parts which already have other infectious agents in them which simply cannot all be detected by currently available scientific methods.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Herd Immunity from vaccination? A myth
Last year I heard Liam Donaldson, England’s Chief Medical Officer (though, thank goodness, retiring soon) using this phony theory to pressurise the public to have the swine flu vaccine, and he also said it was irresponsible for hospital staff not to volunteer for the vaccine because they were thereby putting the public at risk. Subsequently, I heard a doctor parroting the same herd immunity myth. What happens to these people after medical school? Do they just carry on believing everything they were told by an ancient professor? Don’t they read any books or use the search facilities on their computers?
“The herd immunity theory was originally coined in 1933 by a researcher called Hedrich. He had been studying measles patterns in the US between 1900-1931 (years before any vaccine was ever invented for measles) and he observed that epidemics of the illness only occurred when less than 68% of children had developed a natural immunity to it. This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.
Later on, vaccinologists adopted the phrase and increased the figure from 68% to 95% with no scientific justification as to why, and then stated that there had to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity. Essentially, they took Hedrich’s study and manipulated it to promote their vaccination programmes.” [I am indebted to this website for that historical detail http://www.lowellsfacts.com/herdimmunity.html].
Hedrich found that if enough of a population developed a NATURAL immunity through having had a disease like measles and having recovered from it, then that virus didn’t subsequently return to cause an epidemic. However, this is NOT the case with the supposed immunisation of vaccinated populations.
In fact to use the word “immunisation” in connection with vaccines is totally wrong. There are lists and lists of documented instances in medical literature showing that fully vaccinated populations DO contract the disease they were vaccinated against. And with measles this actually seems to be the result of high vaccination rates (1). In relation to the Hib vaccine a Minnesota state immunologist concluded that the vaccine increases the risk of illness when a study revealed that vaccinated children were five times more likely to contract meningitis than unvaccinated children. Again, if you look at the statistics for flu death, in 1999, before flu vaccines were recommended and administered in the US to small children, just 25 children under 5 years old died that year from influenza. In 2000, 2001 and 2002, there were just 19, 13 and 12 flu deaths in this age group. However, in late 2002 the Centre for Disease Control began advocating that all young children receive flu vaccines and doctors responded to that recommendation. The result:? In 2003 flu deaths in children under 5 years rocketed to 90 cases.
Doctors who are prepared to confront the facts understand that vaccination does not confer lifetime protection from a disease in the comprehensive way that happens when a person contracts the disease and recovers from it naturally after the body’s immune system has dealt with it. [This is not to say that there isn’t a valuable role for the medical profession to play when intervention is warranted to help a patient where their immune system isn’t strong enough to enable them to recover without assistance]. Furthermore, they are bound to admit that if one measures supposed protection by the number of antibodies in a person, many vaccinations only confer a degree of protection for a short period which may be 1 to 5 years or even less. This is the reason why vaccine manufacturers advocate booster vaccines for many of their products.
Without the mantra of “herd immunity”, public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations. As one website (2) states, “I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth”.
-------------------------------------------
1 Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology, May 1996; 79(2):163-170. Eg during a 1984 outbreak in an Illinois high school, 100% of the cases occurred in previously vaccinated students.
2 http://secretsofnaturalhealing.blogspot.com/2009/12/forced-vaccinations-and-myth-behind.html
“The herd immunity theory was originally coined in 1933 by a researcher called Hedrich. He had been studying measles patterns in the US between 1900-1931 (years before any vaccine was ever invented for measles) and he observed that epidemics of the illness only occurred when less than 68% of children had developed a natural immunity to it. This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.
Later on, vaccinologists adopted the phrase and increased the figure from 68% to 95% with no scientific justification as to why, and then stated that there had to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity. Essentially, they took Hedrich’s study and manipulated it to promote their vaccination programmes.” [I am indebted to this website for that historical detail http://www.lowellsfacts.com/herdimmunity.html].
Hedrich found that if enough of a population developed a NATURAL immunity through having had a disease like measles and having recovered from it, then that virus didn’t subsequently return to cause an epidemic. However, this is NOT the case with the supposed immunisation of vaccinated populations.
In fact to use the word “immunisation” in connection with vaccines is totally wrong. There are lists and lists of documented instances in medical literature showing that fully vaccinated populations DO contract the disease they were vaccinated against. And with measles this actually seems to be the result of high vaccination rates (1). In relation to the Hib vaccine a Minnesota state immunologist concluded that the vaccine increases the risk of illness when a study revealed that vaccinated children were five times more likely to contract meningitis than unvaccinated children. Again, if you look at the statistics for flu death, in 1999, before flu vaccines were recommended and administered in the US to small children, just 25 children under 5 years old died that year from influenza. In 2000, 2001 and 2002, there were just 19, 13 and 12 flu deaths in this age group. However, in late 2002 the Centre for Disease Control began advocating that all young children receive flu vaccines and doctors responded to that recommendation. The result:? In 2003 flu deaths in children under 5 years rocketed to 90 cases.
Doctors who are prepared to confront the facts understand that vaccination does not confer lifetime protection from a disease in the comprehensive way that happens when a person contracts the disease and recovers from it naturally after the body’s immune system has dealt with it. [This is not to say that there isn’t a valuable role for the medical profession to play when intervention is warranted to help a patient where their immune system isn’t strong enough to enable them to recover without assistance]. Furthermore, they are bound to admit that if one measures supposed protection by the number of antibodies in a person, many vaccinations only confer a degree of protection for a short period which may be 1 to 5 years or even less. This is the reason why vaccine manufacturers advocate booster vaccines for many of their products.
Without the mantra of “herd immunity”, public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations. As one website (2) states, “I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth”.
-------------------------------------------
1 Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology, May 1996; 79(2):163-170. Eg during a 1984 outbreak in an Illinois high school, 100% of the cases occurred in previously vaccinated students.
2 http://secretsofnaturalhealing.blogspot.com/2009/12/forced-vaccinations-and-myth-behind.html
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
House of Commons Committee Report on Homeopathy a Sham
What an excellent dissection of this sorry saga is given on the blogsite referenced below.
Committee members Phil Willis (Chairman), Evan Harris and their fellow travellers in the Anti Homeopathy Brigade on the Committee ought to be required to pay back the taxpayers money they wasted in this exercise, and the HoC should either disband this Committee or reconstitute it with some members who can demonstrate impartiality.
Here is the text of the Early Day Motion set down by David Tredinick MP following their biased Report
"EDM 908 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORT ON HOMEOPATHY 23.02.2010
Tredinnick, David
That this House expresses concern at the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee's Report, Evidence Check on Homeopathy; notes that the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses, including known critics of homeopathy Tracy Brown, the Managing Director of Sense About Science, and journalist Dr Ben Goldacre, who have no expertise in the subject; believes that evidence should have been heard from primary care trusts that commission homeopathy, doctors who use it in a primary care setting, and other relevant organisations, such as the Society of Homeopaths, to provide balance; observes that the Committee did not consider evidence from abroad from countries such as France and Germany, where provision of homeopathy is far more widespread than in the UK, or from India, where it is part of the health service; regrets that the Committee ignored the 74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, of which 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective, and that the Committee recommends no further research; further notes that 206 hon. Members signed Early Day Motion No. 1240 in support of NHS homeopathic hospitals in Session 2006-07; and calls on the Government to maintain its policy of allowing decision-making on individual clinical interventions, including homeopathy, to remain in the hands of local NHS service providers and practitioners who are best placed to know their community's needs."
--------------------------
A wizard article on http://vonsyhomeopathy.wordpress.com goes into the "murky" background:
“Stop funding NHS Homeopathy, MPs urge”. But who are these MPs?
As predicted the media produced the expected snow – every national paper, every TV channel ran the story along similar lines: “Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS, say MPs”. The Mail and Telegraph ran stories on Sunday night, which was interesting since the Science and Technology Committee were adamant that details of the report should not be released to the public until after 11am Monday. Bloggers had already written detailed posts directly quoting the report and published them at precisely 11am. Leaked? Surely not,
The Guardian at least waited till Monday to report: “Stop funding homeopathy, MPs urge”.
And so it went on. Anyone reading the news might have imagined that there had been an in depth investigation of the matter in parliament.
But who are these MPs doing the urging, and how does the Science and Technology Committee work?
The Science and Technology Committee is a parliamentary Select Committee charged with looking into what informs government policy in a number of areas – it’s a relatively recent enterprise and homeopathy is only their second investigation in this form. One might ask why – of all the government policy the committee could have chosen to investigate, it chose homeopathy – which uses just 0.004% of the NHS budget and has been part of the NHS since 1948. We can only surmise.
Phil Willis, Chair of the committee was at pains to put on record that it was NOT to be an investigation into whether homeopathy worked or not – and then he chaired a committee which did exactly that, but restricted the investigation to the narrow remit of RCTs (Random Controlled Trials). Surely not?
Let’s look at this committee in more detail:
At the first meeting on 25th November 5 MPs were present plus the Chair: Phil Willis: a history teacher and associate of the Pharma lobby group Sense About Science; Tim Boswell, a farmer; Brian Iddon, Professor of Chemistry; Graham Stringer, Analytical Chemist; Evan Harris, medical doctor and associate of Sense About Science and Ian Stewart, chemical plant operator and open mind.
It can be said categorically that NONE of the MPS present at the hearings have any expertise or even understanding of the homeopathic method. It could be said that those steeped in chemistry might find it particularly challenging.
The committee spent a total of 4 and half hours questioning 12 witnesses – 7 of whom also have NO expertise or understanding of the homeopathic method – 5 of the 9 non-governmental witnesses had previously publicly declared they were vehemently opposed to homeopathy. Only 1 witness is in clinical practice. Biased? Surely not?
The procedure called for written submissions – closing date was Nov 6th 2009. Based on these submissions witnesses would be selected to give oral submissions at the committee’s meetings.
Almost 50 written submissions were received by the closing date and invitations for witnesses were apparently sent out 48 hours later. It would be interesting to know which devoted MPs stayed up all night reading the submissions and selecting witnesses. Unless of course they had already been pre-selected. Surely not?
Anyone who has watched the archived meetings on the parliamentary website will know that at least two members of the committee had a clear agenda they were determined to push through. Evan Harris and Chair of the committee Phil Willis, Sense About Science associates, made no attempt to hide their disdain for the witnesses speaking on behalf of homeopathy. Denialist bloggers and newspapers like the Guardian had a field day with sound bites and helped set the scene for the foregone conclusions of the report itself.
All claims of bias were ignored by the committee and the draft report was written.
This is where it gets even more interesting….
At the meeting of Feb 8th 2010 the S and T committee met to ratify the report.
Present was: Phil Willis in the Chair, Evan Harris, Tim Boswell, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith and Ian Stewart.
Ian Stewart put forward an amendment not to ratify the report as it stood but to call upon government to “fund a rigorous research programme into homeopathy”
Voting was: Ayes: Ian Stewart Noes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith. Presumably Tim Boswell abstained though his vote was not recorded.
A second vote was taken on the specific paragraph relating to research – to retain as written and not insert Stewart’s amendment: paragraph 77. “There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities.”
Voting was: Ayes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith Noes: Ian Stewart Paragraph was agreed to as was. Tim Boswell abstained? Vote not recorded.
The vote to accept the report and its recommendations to stop funding NHS homeopathy on the basis that the evidence did not support government policy was: Ayes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith Noes: Ian Stewart. Tim Boswell abstained again? We’ll never know.
SO this report was ratified by just THREE MPs:
Evan Harris, associate of Sense About Science and it’s fair to say rabid anti-homeopathy campaigner, 1023 participant and ’senior counsel for the prosecution’.
Ian Cawsey – IT expert, who joined the S and T committee in October 2009, just a month before the meetings and yet chose not to attend the committee’s investigation – in fact was nowhere to be seen until the ratification meeting.
Doug Naysmith – an immunologist – did not join the S and T committee until January 2010 – so was not even on the committee until after all the hearings – yet was present for the ratification of the report. And he is standing down at the next election.
A committee would invite a new member to join knowing that in a matter of a few months he would be leaving again? Surely not?
So let’s get this straight – the report and its recommendations that led to the media snow this week, and the dramatic assertion that the public have been duped since 1948 by NHS placebos masquerading as medicine, is the result of a report ratified by THREE MPs: TWO of whom were NOT EVEN PRESENT AT THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS – and ONE of the two was NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE when the hearings were held, and is due to stand down at the election in May this year.
This Science and Technology Committee investigation into homeopathy was a set up and a sham from its inception to the final meeting and delivery of the report to the UK press. And there’s no “surely not” about it.
-------------
And if anyone wants to read the Evidence to the Committee it can be found here
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/contents.htm
It bears mentioning that the Committee called for evidence only on 20th October 2009 and wanted submissions by 6th November. Many in the pro-homeopathy group heard of this only days before the 6th November so if you wondered why more evidence was not put in by them, that's the reason. Convenient for the antis, Huh?
Committee members Phil Willis (Chairman), Evan Harris and their fellow travellers in the Anti Homeopathy Brigade on the Committee ought to be required to pay back the taxpayers money they wasted in this exercise, and the HoC should either disband this Committee or reconstitute it with some members who can demonstrate impartiality.
Here is the text of the Early Day Motion set down by David Tredinick MP following their biased Report
"EDM 908 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORT ON HOMEOPATHY 23.02.2010
Tredinnick, David
That this House expresses concern at the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee's Report, Evidence Check on Homeopathy; notes that the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses, including known critics of homeopathy Tracy Brown, the Managing Director of Sense About Science, and journalist Dr Ben Goldacre, who have no expertise in the subject; believes that evidence should have been heard from primary care trusts that commission homeopathy, doctors who use it in a primary care setting, and other relevant organisations, such as the Society of Homeopaths, to provide balance; observes that the Committee did not consider evidence from abroad from countries such as France and Germany, where provision of homeopathy is far more widespread than in the UK, or from India, where it is part of the health service; regrets that the Committee ignored the 74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, of which 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective, and that the Committee recommends no further research; further notes that 206 hon. Members signed Early Day Motion No. 1240 in support of NHS homeopathic hospitals in Session 2006-07; and calls on the Government to maintain its policy of allowing decision-making on individual clinical interventions, including homeopathy, to remain in the hands of local NHS service providers and practitioners who are best placed to know their community's needs."
--------------------------
A wizard article on http://vonsyhomeopathy.wordpress.com goes into the "murky" background:
“Stop funding NHS Homeopathy, MPs urge”. But who are these MPs?
As predicted the media produced the expected snow – every national paper, every TV channel ran the story along similar lines: “Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS, say MPs”. The Mail and Telegraph ran stories on Sunday night, which was interesting since the Science and Technology Committee were adamant that details of the report should not be released to the public until after 11am Monday. Bloggers had already written detailed posts directly quoting the report and published them at precisely 11am. Leaked? Surely not,
The Guardian at least waited till Monday to report: “Stop funding homeopathy, MPs urge”.
And so it went on. Anyone reading the news might have imagined that there had been an in depth investigation of the matter in parliament.
But who are these MPs doing the urging, and how does the Science and Technology Committee work?
The Science and Technology Committee is a parliamentary Select Committee charged with looking into what informs government policy in a number of areas – it’s a relatively recent enterprise and homeopathy is only their second investigation in this form. One might ask why – of all the government policy the committee could have chosen to investigate, it chose homeopathy – which uses just 0.004% of the NHS budget and has been part of the NHS since 1948. We can only surmise.
Phil Willis, Chair of the committee was at pains to put on record that it was NOT to be an investigation into whether homeopathy worked or not – and then he chaired a committee which did exactly that, but restricted the investigation to the narrow remit of RCTs (Random Controlled Trials). Surely not?
Let’s look at this committee in more detail:
At the first meeting on 25th November 5 MPs were present plus the Chair: Phil Willis: a history teacher and associate of the Pharma lobby group Sense About Science; Tim Boswell, a farmer; Brian Iddon, Professor of Chemistry; Graham Stringer, Analytical Chemist; Evan Harris, medical doctor and associate of Sense About Science and Ian Stewart, chemical plant operator and open mind.
It can be said categorically that NONE of the MPS present at the hearings have any expertise or even understanding of the homeopathic method. It could be said that those steeped in chemistry might find it particularly challenging.
The committee spent a total of 4 and half hours questioning 12 witnesses – 7 of whom also have NO expertise or understanding of the homeopathic method – 5 of the 9 non-governmental witnesses had previously publicly declared they were vehemently opposed to homeopathy. Only 1 witness is in clinical practice. Biased? Surely not?
The procedure called for written submissions – closing date was Nov 6th 2009. Based on these submissions witnesses would be selected to give oral submissions at the committee’s meetings.
Almost 50 written submissions were received by the closing date and invitations for witnesses were apparently sent out 48 hours later. It would be interesting to know which devoted MPs stayed up all night reading the submissions and selecting witnesses. Unless of course they had already been pre-selected. Surely not?
Anyone who has watched the archived meetings on the parliamentary website will know that at least two members of the committee had a clear agenda they were determined to push through. Evan Harris and Chair of the committee Phil Willis, Sense About Science associates, made no attempt to hide their disdain for the witnesses speaking on behalf of homeopathy. Denialist bloggers and newspapers like the Guardian had a field day with sound bites and helped set the scene for the foregone conclusions of the report itself.
All claims of bias were ignored by the committee and the draft report was written.
This is where it gets even more interesting….
At the meeting of Feb 8th 2010 the S and T committee met to ratify the report.
Present was: Phil Willis in the Chair, Evan Harris, Tim Boswell, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith and Ian Stewart.
Ian Stewart put forward an amendment not to ratify the report as it stood but to call upon government to “fund a rigorous research programme into homeopathy”
Voting was: Ayes: Ian Stewart Noes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith. Presumably Tim Boswell abstained though his vote was not recorded.
A second vote was taken on the specific paragraph relating to research – to retain as written and not insert Stewart’s amendment: paragraph 77. “There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities.”
Voting was: Ayes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith Noes: Ian Stewart Paragraph was agreed to as was. Tim Boswell abstained? Vote not recorded.
The vote to accept the report and its recommendations to stop funding NHS homeopathy on the basis that the evidence did not support government policy was: Ayes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith Noes: Ian Stewart. Tim Boswell abstained again? We’ll never know.
SO this report was ratified by just THREE MPs:
Evan Harris, associate of Sense About Science and it’s fair to say rabid anti-homeopathy campaigner, 1023 participant and ’senior counsel for the prosecution’.
Ian Cawsey – IT expert, who joined the S and T committee in October 2009, just a month before the meetings and yet chose not to attend the committee’s investigation – in fact was nowhere to be seen until the ratification meeting.
Doug Naysmith – an immunologist – did not join the S and T committee until January 2010 – so was not even on the committee until after all the hearings – yet was present for the ratification of the report. And he is standing down at the next election.
A committee would invite a new member to join knowing that in a matter of a few months he would be leaving again? Surely not?
So let’s get this straight – the report and its recommendations that led to the media snow this week, and the dramatic assertion that the public have been duped since 1948 by NHS placebos masquerading as medicine, is the result of a report ratified by THREE MPs: TWO of whom were NOT EVEN PRESENT AT THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS – and ONE of the two was NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE when the hearings were held, and is due to stand down at the election in May this year.
This Science and Technology Committee investigation into homeopathy was a set up and a sham from its inception to the final meeting and delivery of the report to the UK press. And there’s no “surely not” about it.
-------------
And if anyone wants to read the Evidence to the Committee it can be found here
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/contents.htm
It bears mentioning that the Committee called for evidence only on 20th October 2009 and wanted submissions by 6th November. Many in the pro-homeopathy group heard of this only days before the 6th November so if you wondered why more evidence was not put in by them, that's the reason. Convenient for the antis, Huh?
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Antibiotics: Life savers and cause of death. Alternatives needed
The European Central Council of Homeopaths, made up of 26 member professional associations in 22 EU, EEA and CEE countries, has issued this report on antibiotics. See http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/
Antibiotic resistance has become a global health problem. Over-use and mis-use of antibiotics has caused the development of lethal antibiotic resistant micro-organisms. They are now also suspected of causing cancer. Can homeopathy serve as an alternative?
International warning
18 November 2009 was the 2nd European Antibiotic Awareness Day. The European Centre of Disease prevention and Control (ECDC) warned about the threat of antibiotic resistance and called for antibiotics to be used far more responsibly in the treatment of infectious diseases1. Antibiotics are of no use in viral infections and they should not be used in uncomplicated bacterial infections such as light ear, throat and sinus infections2.
The ECDC and the World Health Organisation (WHO) warn that infectious micro-organisms have become increasingly resistant to existing antibiotics3. Replacement products are proving difficult to find. Governments and researchers across the world are searching for alternatives.
Antibiotics may cause cancer
A Finnish study based on three million people correlates a higher risk of developing prostate, breast, lung, and colon cancer with multiple use of antibiotics4. Researchers are currently unsure as to whether antibiotics are carcinogenic and directly cause cancer, or that cancers develop as a result of antibiotics disturbing the body’s protective intestinal micro-biotic environment.
Homeopathy – effective in infectious diseases
Research shows that homeopathy can serve as an effective alternative to antibiotics in a range of infectious conditions for which they have been commonly used5-13.
Out of 500 patients suffering from upper respiratory complaints, 82 % receiving homeopathy improved within 14 days, compared to 67 % treated conventionally10. In another study with 169 children, those receiving homeopathic treatment had significantly less symptoms and shorter duration of disease compared to other children11. Their parents also had less time away from work.
Homeopathy is effective in treating recurrent ear infections in children7-8. Over 70 % had no ear infections after homeopathy, compared to 57 % percent receiving conventional drugs8. Out of 230 children those receiving homeopathic treatment recovered 2.4 times faster than others7.
Three surveys show that homeopathy is at least as effective as conventional treatment in treating sinus infections5,12-13.
Patients receiving homeopathic treatment need antibiotics less often. Moreover, no complications are found. Homeopathy is not only effective and avoids the creation of antibiotic resistance, but is also shown to be potentially a more cost-effective solution14-16.
In summary: Homeopathy may be at least as effective as conventional treatment in treating infectious diseases. It could therefore serve as an effective first line option in treating viral and mild bacterial infectious diseases and so help preserve antibiotics for when they are really needed.
References
1. ECDC Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare-Associated Infections Programme. Antibiotic resistance in Europe: the challenges ahead. Euro Surveill. 2009; 14(45): pii=19405. Available online: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19405
2. Arroll B, Kenealy T. Are antibiotics effective for acute purulent rhinitis? Systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo controlled randomised trials. BMJ 2006, doi:10.1136/bmj.38891.681215.AE
3. WHO Use of antimicrobials outside human medicine and resultant antimicrobial resistance in humans http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs268/en/
4. Kilkkinen A, Rissanen H, Klaukka T, Pukkala E, Heliövaara M, Huovinen P, Männistö S, Aromaa A, Knekt P. Antibiotic use predicts an increased risk of cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2008, 123, 2152–2155.
5. Adler M. Efficacy, safety of a fixed-combination homeopathic therapy for sinusitis. Adv Ther 1999; 16: 103-111.
6. De Lange de Klerk E, et al. Effects of homoeopathic medicines on daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. BMJ 1994; 309: 1329-1332.
7. Frei H, Thurneysen A. Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children: treatment effect or spontaneous resolution? Br Homeopath J 2001, 90: 180-182.
8. Friese K-H, Kruse S, Ludtke R, Moeller H. Homeopathic treatment of otitis media in children: comparisons with conventional therapy. Int J Clim Pharmacol Ther 1997; 35: 296-301.
9. Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 177-183.
10. Riley D, Fischer M, Singh B, Haidvogl M, Heger M. Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcojmes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting. J Altern Complement Med 2001; 7: 149-159.
11. Steinsbekk A, Fønnebø V, Lewith G, Bentzen N. Homeopathic care for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections in children: A pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial comparing individualised homeopathic care and waiting-list controls. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2005, 13, 231-238.
12. Weber U, Luedtke R, Friese KH, Fischer I, Moeller H. A non-randomised pilot study to compare complementary and conventional tretaments of acute sinusitis. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2002; 9: 99-104.
13. Wiesenauer M, Gaus W, Bohnacker U, Haussler S. (Efficiency of homeopathic preparation combinations in sinusitis. Results of a randomized double blind study with general practitioners.) Arzneimittelforschung 1989; 39: 620-625.
14. Rossi E, Crudeli L, Endrizzi C, Garibaldi D. Cost-benefit evaluation of homeopathic versus conventional therapy in respiratory diseases. Homeopathy 2009, 98, 2–10.
15. Trichard M, Chaufferin G, Dubreuil C, Nicoloyannis N, Duru G. Effectiveness, quality of life, and cost of caring for children in France with recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis managed by homeopathic or non-homeopathic general practitioners. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2004, 12(6): 419-427.
Van Wassenhoven M, Ives G. An observational study of patients receiving homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004, 93, 3–11.
Antibiotic resistance has become a global health problem. Over-use and mis-use of antibiotics has caused the development of lethal antibiotic resistant micro-organisms. They are now also suspected of causing cancer. Can homeopathy serve as an alternative?
International warning
18 November 2009 was the 2nd European Antibiotic Awareness Day. The European Centre of Disease prevention and Control (ECDC) warned about the threat of antibiotic resistance and called for antibiotics to be used far more responsibly in the treatment of infectious diseases1. Antibiotics are of no use in viral infections and they should not be used in uncomplicated bacterial infections such as light ear, throat and sinus infections2.
The ECDC and the World Health Organisation (WHO) warn that infectious micro-organisms have become increasingly resistant to existing antibiotics3. Replacement products are proving difficult to find. Governments and researchers across the world are searching for alternatives.
Antibiotics may cause cancer
A Finnish study based on three million people correlates a higher risk of developing prostate, breast, lung, and colon cancer with multiple use of antibiotics4. Researchers are currently unsure as to whether antibiotics are carcinogenic and directly cause cancer, or that cancers develop as a result of antibiotics disturbing the body’s protective intestinal micro-biotic environment.
Homeopathy – effective in infectious diseases
Research shows that homeopathy can serve as an effective alternative to antibiotics in a range of infectious conditions for which they have been commonly used5-13.
Out of 500 patients suffering from upper respiratory complaints, 82 % receiving homeopathy improved within 14 days, compared to 67 % treated conventionally10. In another study with 169 children, those receiving homeopathic treatment had significantly less symptoms and shorter duration of disease compared to other children11. Their parents also had less time away from work.
Homeopathy is effective in treating recurrent ear infections in children7-8. Over 70 % had no ear infections after homeopathy, compared to 57 % percent receiving conventional drugs8. Out of 230 children those receiving homeopathic treatment recovered 2.4 times faster than others7.
Three surveys show that homeopathy is at least as effective as conventional treatment in treating sinus infections5,12-13.
Patients receiving homeopathic treatment need antibiotics less often. Moreover, no complications are found. Homeopathy is not only effective and avoids the creation of antibiotic resistance, but is also shown to be potentially a more cost-effective solution14-16.
In summary: Homeopathy may be at least as effective as conventional treatment in treating infectious diseases. It could therefore serve as an effective first line option in treating viral and mild bacterial infectious diseases and so help preserve antibiotics for when they are really needed.
References
1. ECDC Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare-Associated Infections Programme. Antibiotic resistance in Europe: the challenges ahead. Euro Surveill. 2009; 14(45): pii=19405. Available online: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19405
2. Arroll B, Kenealy T. Are antibiotics effective for acute purulent rhinitis? Systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo controlled randomised trials. BMJ 2006, doi:10.1136/bmj.38891.681215.AE
3. WHO Use of antimicrobials outside human medicine and resultant antimicrobial resistance in humans http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs268/en/
4. Kilkkinen A, Rissanen H, Klaukka T, Pukkala E, Heliövaara M, Huovinen P, Männistö S, Aromaa A, Knekt P. Antibiotic use predicts an increased risk of cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2008, 123, 2152–2155.
5. Adler M. Efficacy, safety of a fixed-combination homeopathic therapy for sinusitis. Adv Ther 1999; 16: 103-111.
6. De Lange de Klerk E, et al. Effects of homoeopathic medicines on daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. BMJ 1994; 309: 1329-1332.
7. Frei H, Thurneysen A. Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children: treatment effect or spontaneous resolution? Br Homeopath J 2001, 90: 180-182.
8. Friese K-H, Kruse S, Ludtke R, Moeller H. Homeopathic treatment of otitis media in children: comparisons with conventional therapy. Int J Clim Pharmacol Ther 1997; 35: 296-301.
9. Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 177-183.
10. Riley D, Fischer M, Singh B, Haidvogl M, Heger M. Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcojmes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting. J Altern Complement Med 2001; 7: 149-159.
11. Steinsbekk A, Fønnebø V, Lewith G, Bentzen N. Homeopathic care for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections in children: A pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial comparing individualised homeopathic care and waiting-list controls. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2005, 13, 231-238.
12. Weber U, Luedtke R, Friese KH, Fischer I, Moeller H. A non-randomised pilot study to compare complementary and conventional tretaments of acute sinusitis. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2002; 9: 99-104.
13. Wiesenauer M, Gaus W, Bohnacker U, Haussler S. (Efficiency of homeopathic preparation combinations in sinusitis. Results of a randomized double blind study with general practitioners.) Arzneimittelforschung 1989; 39: 620-625.
14. Rossi E, Crudeli L, Endrizzi C, Garibaldi D. Cost-benefit evaluation of homeopathic versus conventional therapy in respiratory diseases. Homeopathy 2009, 98, 2–10.
15. Trichard M, Chaufferin G, Dubreuil C, Nicoloyannis N, Duru G. Effectiveness, quality of life, and cost of caring for children in France with recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis managed by homeopathic or non-homeopathic general practitioners. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2004, 12(6): 419-427.
Van Wassenhoven M, Ives G. An observational study of patients receiving homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004, 93, 3–11.
Presenting 55 Facts About Homeopathy
Here's another succinct summary by Louise Mclean, LCCH MHMA, Editor, Zeus Homoeopathy News and Homeopathy Heals Me! www.homeopathyheals.me.uk
How Homeopathy Works
FACT 1: Hippocrates ‘The Father of Medicine’ of Ancient Greece said there were two Laws of Healing: The Law of Opposites and the Law of Similars. Homeopathy treats the patient with medicines using the Law of Similars, orthodox medicine uses the Law of Opposites, e.g. antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, anti-convulsants, anti-hypertensives,
anti-depressants, anti-psychotics.
FACT 2: Homeopathic theories are based on fixed principles of the Laws of Nature - unlike medical theories which are constantly changing!
FACT 3: Homeopathy is an evidence-based, empirical medicine.
FACT 4: Homeopathy is both an art and a science.
FACT 5: The Homeopathic PROVINGS of medicines are a more scientific method of testing than the orthodox model of RCTs or double blind trials.
FACT 6: Homeopathic medicine awakens and stimulates the body's own curative powers. The potentised remedy acts as a catalyst to set healing into motion.
FACT 7: Homeopathic medicines work by communicating a current/pattern/frequency of energy via the whole human body to jump start the body’s own inherent healing mechanisms.
FACT 8: Homeopathy assists the body to heal itself, to overcome an illness which brings the patient to a HIGHER level of health. Orthodox medicine suppresses the illness, bringing the patient to a lower level of health.
FACT 9: The homeopathic practitioner endeavours to search for and treat the CAUSE of the disease in order to heal the EFFECT.
FACT 10: Outcomes of homeopathic treatment are measured by the LONG TERM curative effects of prescribing and complete eradication of the disease state.
FACT 11: The homeopathic practitioner treats the WHOLE PERSON, believing all symptoms are interrelated and seeks to select a medicine which most closely covers them all.
FACT 12: Homeopathy works FAST in acute illnesses, slower in chronic illness.
FACT 13: Homeopathic medicine has been proven extremely effective in Epidemics such as cholera, typhoid, diptheria, yellow fever, polio and influenza and were used extensively in 19th century. http://www.whale.to/v/winston.html
Homeopathic Medicines
FACT 14: Homeopathic remedies are cheap.
FACT 15. Pharmaceutical medicines are expensive.
FACT 16: Homeopathy is the 2nd most popular and widely used medicine in the world.
FACT 17: There are more than 4,000 homeopathic medicines.
FACT 18: Homeopathic medicines have no toxic side-effects.
FACT 19: Homeopathic medicines are NON-ADDICTIVE.
FACT 20: In 200 years, there has never been a single homeopathic medicine recalled, unlike pharmaceutical medicines.
FACT 21: Every true homeopathic medicine is made using ONE SUBSTANCE – whether plant, mineral, metal, etc. The exact substance is known, unlike most modern drugs where we are rarely informed of the ingredients.
FACT 22: Any remedy up to a 12c or a 24x potency still contains the original molecules of the substance and this is known as Avogadro's number.
FACT 23: Every Patient is Unique so homeopathic medicines are individualised.
FACT 24: Homeopaths treat genetic illness, tracing its origins to 6 main genetic causes or ‘miasms’: Tuberculosis, Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Psora (scabies), Cancer, Leprosy.
FACT 25: High fevers will drop within minutes after taking the homeopathic medicine Belladonna and Aconite.
FACT 26: There are thousands of homeopathic books, available at specialist outlets, not sold in the high street.
Homeopathic Hospitals
FACT 27: There are 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK - in London, Tunbridge Wells, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow. They cost the NHS under £10 million a year compared to the £100 billion for the total annual NHS budget for 2008!
FACT 28: At one of the earliest debates on the NHS Act of 1948 the Government pledged that homoeopathy would continue to be available on the NHS, as long as there were "patients wishing to receive it and doctors willing to provide it".
FACT 29: There is a campaign by certain UK Professors to oust homeopathy completely from the NHS http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1827553.ece
and in 2007 they organised a document on NHS headed paper to be sent to all Primary Care Trusts telling managers not to refer patients to the homeopathic hospitals. http://dcscience.net/homeopathy_paper_for_nhs_commissioners.pdf
FACT 30: The Homeopathic Hospitals are clean, with friendly, well informed staff. The patients are generally pleased with their treatment unlike many orthodox National Health Service hospitals.
FACT 31: The chances of contracting MRSA or C. Difficile at a Homeopathic Hospital are extremely rare.
FACT 32: Unlike orthodox medicine, where the side-effects of pharmaceutical medicines bill for negligence claims can run into millions, one UK leading insurance company reported only ‘a couple’ of claims against homeopaths in a ten year period! Hence insurance cover for homeopathy is cheap reflecting low risk.
Orthodox Medicine Opposing Homeopathy
FACT 33: In the United States in the early 1900s there were 22 homeopathic medical schools and over 100 homeopathic hospitals, 60 orphanages and old people's homes and 1,000+ homeopathic pharmacies.
FACT 34: Members of the American Medical Association had great animosity towards homeopathy after its formation in 1847 and it was decided to purge all local medical societies of physicians who were homeopaths.
FACT 35: Big Pharma does not want the Public to find out how well homeopathy works!
Scientific Studies
FACT 36: In 2005 World Health Organisation brought out a draft report which showed homeopathy was beneficial causing Big Pharma to panic and the Lancet to bring out an editorial entitled ‘The End of Homeopathy’.
FACT 37: In 2005 the Lancet tried to destroy homeopathy but were only looking at 8 inconclusive trials out of 110 of which 102 were positive. This was a fraudulent analysis.
"The meta-analysis at the centre of the controversy is based on 110 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and 110 clinical trials of allopathy (conventional medicine), which are said to be matched. These were reduced to 21 trials of homeopathy and 9 of conventional medicine of ‘higher quality’ and further reduced to 8 and 6 trials, respectively, which were ‘larger, higher quality’. The final analysis which concluded that ‘the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects’ was based on just the eight ‘larger, higher quality’ clinical trials of homeopathy. The Lancet's press release did not mention this, instead giving the impression that the conclusions were based on all 110 trials."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230
FACT 38: There have been many clinical trials that prove homeopathy works. In the past 24 years there have been more than 180 controlled, and 118 randomized, trials into homeopathy, which were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In each case, the researchers concluded that the benefits of homeopathy went far beyond that which could be explained purely by the placebo effect.
FACT 39: The Bristol Homeopathic Hospital carried out a study published in November 2005 of 6500 patients receiving homeopathic treatment. There was an overall improvement in health of 70% of them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm
FACT 40: Homeopathy can never be properly tested through double blind randomised trials because each prescription is individualised as every patient is unique. Therefore 10 people with arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine.
FACT 41: Homeopathic medicines are not tested on animals.
FACT 42: Homeopathic medicines work even better on animals and babies than on adults, proving this cannot be placebo effect.
FACT 43: Homeopathy is safe for women to take while pregnant and safe for old people.
FACT 44: Scientists agree that if and when homeopathy is accepted by the scientific community it will turn established science on its head.
Homeopathic Practitioners
FACT 45: Homeopathic Practitioners train for 3 or 4 years in Anatomy and Physiology, as well as Pathology and Disease, Materia Medica, Homeopathic Philosophy and study of the Homeopathic Repertory.
FACT 46: Most homeopaths treat patients who have been referred to them by
word of mouth. Most patients seek out homeopathy because conventional treatment has not benefitted them or because it poses too great a risk of side-effects.
FACT 47: The homeopathic community has thousands, even millions, of
written case notes that demonstrate the positive benefits of their treatment. Some homeopaths have video proof of their patients before and after treatment.
FACT 48: Homeopaths charge patients an average of £50 an hour. Specialist
Doctors can charge up to £200 or more.
Popularity of Homeopathy
FACT 49: The popularity of homeopathy has grown in the past 30 years, its revival entirely through word of mouth and estimated to be growing at more than 20% a year the world over!
FACT 50: Hundreds of famous people throughout the past 200 years have enjoyed the benefits of homeopathic medicine. www.homeopathicrevolution.com
FACT 51: The aristocratic patronage of homeopathy in the UK extended well into the 1940s and beyond can be easily demonstrated. In the Homeopathic Medical Directories there are lists of patrons of the dispensaries and hospitals. They read like an extract from Burke’s or Debrett’s.
FACT 52: The Royal Families of Europe use homeopathic medicine and Queen Elizabeth II of England never travels anywhere without her homeopathic vials of medicine.
FACT 53: Homeopathy is practised nowadays in countries all over the world. In India there are 100 homeopathic medical schools and around 250,000 homeopathic doctors!
FACT 54: In a recent Global TGI survey where people were asked whether they trust homeopathy the following percentages of people living in urban areas said YES: 62% in India, 58% Brazil, 53% Saudi Arabia, Chile 49%, United Arab Emirates 49%, France 40%, South Africa 35%, Russia 28%, Germany 27%, Argentina 25%, Hungary 25%, USA 18%, UK 15%. http://www.tgisurveys.com/documents/TGIbarometerhomeopathy_Jan08.pdf
FACT 55: The media as a whole has been unwilling to air a defence of the efficacy of homeopathy and the validity of this 250 year old profession.
Please put up on as many websites as possible…Louise Mclean
Zeus Homeopathy News
Copyright © Louise Mclean 2008
How Homeopathy Works
FACT 1: Hippocrates ‘The Father of Medicine’ of Ancient Greece said there were two Laws of Healing: The Law of Opposites and the Law of Similars. Homeopathy treats the patient with medicines using the Law of Similars, orthodox medicine uses the Law of Opposites, e.g. antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, anti-convulsants, anti-hypertensives,
anti-depressants, anti-psychotics.
FACT 2: Homeopathic theories are based on fixed principles of the Laws of Nature - unlike medical theories which are constantly changing!
FACT 3: Homeopathy is an evidence-based, empirical medicine.
FACT 4: Homeopathy is both an art and a science.
FACT 5: The Homeopathic PROVINGS of medicines are a more scientific method of testing than the orthodox model of RCTs or double blind trials.
FACT 6: Homeopathic medicine awakens and stimulates the body's own curative powers. The potentised remedy acts as a catalyst to set healing into motion.
FACT 7: Homeopathic medicines work by communicating a current/pattern/frequency of energy via the whole human body to jump start the body’s own inherent healing mechanisms.
FACT 8: Homeopathy assists the body to heal itself, to overcome an illness which brings the patient to a HIGHER level of health. Orthodox medicine suppresses the illness, bringing the patient to a lower level of health.
FACT 9: The homeopathic practitioner endeavours to search for and treat the CAUSE of the disease in order to heal the EFFECT.
FACT 10: Outcomes of homeopathic treatment are measured by the LONG TERM curative effects of prescribing and complete eradication of the disease state.
FACT 11: The homeopathic practitioner treats the WHOLE PERSON, believing all symptoms are interrelated and seeks to select a medicine which most closely covers them all.
FACT 12: Homeopathy works FAST in acute illnesses, slower in chronic illness.
FACT 13: Homeopathic medicine has been proven extremely effective in Epidemics such as cholera, typhoid, diptheria, yellow fever, polio and influenza and were used extensively in 19th century. http://www.whale.to/v/winston.html
Homeopathic Medicines
FACT 14: Homeopathic remedies are cheap.
FACT 15. Pharmaceutical medicines are expensive.
FACT 16: Homeopathy is the 2nd most popular and widely used medicine in the world.
FACT 17: There are more than 4,000 homeopathic medicines.
FACT 18: Homeopathic medicines have no toxic side-effects.
FACT 19: Homeopathic medicines are NON-ADDICTIVE.
FACT 20: In 200 years, there has never been a single homeopathic medicine recalled, unlike pharmaceutical medicines.
FACT 21: Every true homeopathic medicine is made using ONE SUBSTANCE – whether plant, mineral, metal, etc. The exact substance is known, unlike most modern drugs where we are rarely informed of the ingredients.
FACT 22: Any remedy up to a 12c or a 24x potency still contains the original molecules of the substance and this is known as Avogadro's number.
FACT 23: Every Patient is Unique so homeopathic medicines are individualised.
FACT 24: Homeopaths treat genetic illness, tracing its origins to 6 main genetic causes or ‘miasms’: Tuberculosis, Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Psora (scabies), Cancer, Leprosy.
FACT 25: High fevers will drop within minutes after taking the homeopathic medicine Belladonna and Aconite.
FACT 26: There are thousands of homeopathic books, available at specialist outlets, not sold in the high street.
Homeopathic Hospitals
FACT 27: There are 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK - in London, Tunbridge Wells, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow. They cost the NHS under £10 million a year compared to the £100 billion for the total annual NHS budget for 2008!
FACT 28: At one of the earliest debates on the NHS Act of 1948 the Government pledged that homoeopathy would continue to be available on the NHS, as long as there were "patients wishing to receive it and doctors willing to provide it".
FACT 29: There is a campaign by certain UK Professors to oust homeopathy completely from the NHS http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1827553.ece
and in 2007 they organised a document on NHS headed paper to be sent to all Primary Care Trusts telling managers not to refer patients to the homeopathic hospitals. http://dcscience.net/homeopathy_paper_for_nhs_commissioners.pdf
FACT 30: The Homeopathic Hospitals are clean, with friendly, well informed staff. The patients are generally pleased with their treatment unlike many orthodox National Health Service hospitals.
FACT 31: The chances of contracting MRSA or C. Difficile at a Homeopathic Hospital are extremely rare.
FACT 32: Unlike orthodox medicine, where the side-effects of pharmaceutical medicines bill for negligence claims can run into millions, one UK leading insurance company reported only ‘a couple’ of claims against homeopaths in a ten year period! Hence insurance cover for homeopathy is cheap reflecting low risk.
Orthodox Medicine Opposing Homeopathy
FACT 33: In the United States in the early 1900s there were 22 homeopathic medical schools and over 100 homeopathic hospitals, 60 orphanages and old people's homes and 1,000+ homeopathic pharmacies.
FACT 34: Members of the American Medical Association had great animosity towards homeopathy after its formation in 1847 and it was decided to purge all local medical societies of physicians who were homeopaths.
FACT 35: Big Pharma does not want the Public to find out how well homeopathy works!
Scientific Studies
FACT 36: In 2005 World Health Organisation brought out a draft report which showed homeopathy was beneficial causing Big Pharma to panic and the Lancet to bring out an editorial entitled ‘The End of Homeopathy’.
FACT 37: In 2005 the Lancet tried to destroy homeopathy but were only looking at 8 inconclusive trials out of 110 of which 102 were positive. This was a fraudulent analysis.
"The meta-analysis at the centre of the controversy is based on 110 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and 110 clinical trials of allopathy (conventional medicine), which are said to be matched. These were reduced to 21 trials of homeopathy and 9 of conventional medicine of ‘higher quality’ and further reduced to 8 and 6 trials, respectively, which were ‘larger, higher quality’. The final analysis which concluded that ‘the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects’ was based on just the eight ‘larger, higher quality’ clinical trials of homeopathy. The Lancet's press release did not mention this, instead giving the impression that the conclusions were based on all 110 trials."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230
FACT 38: There have been many clinical trials that prove homeopathy works. In the past 24 years there have been more than 180 controlled, and 118 randomized, trials into homeopathy, which were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In each case, the researchers concluded that the benefits of homeopathy went far beyond that which could be explained purely by the placebo effect.
FACT 39: The Bristol Homeopathic Hospital carried out a study published in November 2005 of 6500 patients receiving homeopathic treatment. There was an overall improvement in health of 70% of them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm
FACT 40: Homeopathy can never be properly tested through double blind randomised trials because each prescription is individualised as every patient is unique. Therefore 10 people with arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine.
FACT 41: Homeopathic medicines are not tested on animals.
FACT 42: Homeopathic medicines work even better on animals and babies than on adults, proving this cannot be placebo effect.
FACT 43: Homeopathy is safe for women to take while pregnant and safe for old people.
FACT 44: Scientists agree that if and when homeopathy is accepted by the scientific community it will turn established science on its head.
Homeopathic Practitioners
FACT 45: Homeopathic Practitioners train for 3 or 4 years in Anatomy and Physiology, as well as Pathology and Disease, Materia Medica, Homeopathic Philosophy and study of the Homeopathic Repertory.
FACT 46: Most homeopaths treat patients who have been referred to them by
word of mouth. Most patients seek out homeopathy because conventional treatment has not benefitted them or because it poses too great a risk of side-effects.
FACT 47: The homeopathic community has thousands, even millions, of
written case notes that demonstrate the positive benefits of their treatment. Some homeopaths have video proof of their patients before and after treatment.
FACT 48: Homeopaths charge patients an average of £50 an hour. Specialist
Doctors can charge up to £200 or more.
Popularity of Homeopathy
FACT 49: The popularity of homeopathy has grown in the past 30 years, its revival entirely through word of mouth and estimated to be growing at more than 20% a year the world over!
FACT 50: Hundreds of famous people throughout the past 200 years have enjoyed the benefits of homeopathic medicine. www.homeopathicrevolution.com
FACT 51: The aristocratic patronage of homeopathy in the UK extended well into the 1940s and beyond can be easily demonstrated. In the Homeopathic Medical Directories there are lists of patrons of the dispensaries and hospitals. They read like an extract from Burke’s or Debrett’s.
FACT 52: The Royal Families of Europe use homeopathic medicine and Queen Elizabeth II of England never travels anywhere without her homeopathic vials of medicine.
FACT 53: Homeopathy is practised nowadays in countries all over the world. In India there are 100 homeopathic medical schools and around 250,000 homeopathic doctors!
FACT 54: In a recent Global TGI survey where people were asked whether they trust homeopathy the following percentages of people living in urban areas said YES: 62% in India, 58% Brazil, 53% Saudi Arabia, Chile 49%, United Arab Emirates 49%, France 40%, South Africa 35%, Russia 28%, Germany 27%, Argentina 25%, Hungary 25%, USA 18%, UK 15%. http://www.tgisurveys.com/documents/TGIbarometerhomeopathy_Jan08.pdf
FACT 55: The media as a whole has been unwilling to air a defence of the efficacy of homeopathy and the validity of this 250 year old profession.
Please put up on as many websites as possible…Louise Mclean
Zeus Homeopathy News
Copyright © Louise Mclean 2008
Saturday, 9 January 2010
A Vastly Incomplete List of Scientific Research Behind Homeopathy
For anyone interested in following up in this area, there is a long list of interesting stuff and links to additional reference material at http://drptandon.blogspot.com/2009/09/vastly-incomplete-list-of-scientific.html
As an aside Charles Darwin in his experiments also dabbled in dilutions of homeopathic proportions though whether he added the technique of succussion as well (energising by shaking the diluted fluid a number of times)is I believe unknown. In his work on Insectivorous Plants he says: "It is an astonishing fact ... that so inconceivably minute a quantity of 1/20,000,000 of a grain [a much smaller quantity than the 6th decimal trituration] of ammonia phosphate should induce changes in a gland, sufficient to cause a motor impulse to be sent down the whole length of a tentacle, this impulse exciting movements through an angle of about 180 degrees".
As an aside Charles Darwin in his experiments also dabbled in dilutions of homeopathic proportions though whether he added the technique of succussion as well (energising by shaking the diluted fluid a number of times)is I believe unknown. In his work on Insectivorous Plants he says: "It is an astonishing fact ... that so inconceivably minute a quantity of 1/20,000,000 of a grain [a much smaller quantity than the 6th decimal trituration] of ammonia phosphate should induce changes in a gland, sufficient to cause a motor impulse to be sent down the whole length of a tentacle, this impulse exciting movements through an angle of about 180 degrees".
THE TRUTH ABOUT HOMEOPATHY - Dispelling the MYTHS that Surround it! Louise Mclean of Zeus Information Service
Sometimes people need reminding about the essentials of homeopathy because there are a lot of oddballs out there who for their own unfathomable reasons keep on spreading misinformation about it.
An article which Louise wrote a while back is accordingly a must-read! Have a look too at http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk
"In this article, I would like to dispel a plethora of myths surrounding homeopathy which have been used to discredit this highly efficacious healing art and science. Homeopaths are given few opportunities in the media to defend their profession, so a lot of misconceptions abound. The medical profession in general presents a fierce and blinkered opposition, yet as Big Pharma is learning of all sorts of amazing cured cases, they are determined to stamp out competition via EU regulation.
Myth No. 1 – Homeopathic medicines cure nothing.
Homeopathy works by stimulating the body’s OWN healing mechanisms, through like for like. A substance that would cause symptoms in a healthy person can be used to cure the same symptoms in a sick person by giving a minute, highly potentised dose of that substance acting as a catalyst to jump start their own healing mechanisms. Everyone of us has our own natural innate healing powers. All that is needed is the correct stimulus to kick start it. In healthy people this may just be rest and good food but many people become 'stuck' in their physical, emotional or mental illness and cannot recover. Of course there are different levels of health and the choice of potency given should reflect that. Low potencies are given for very physically ill people and higher for those whose problems are emotional or of the mind. Homeopathy is very successful in treating emotional problems such as stress, anxiety and fears.
Myth No 2 – Homeopathic medicines are just water
Homeopathic medicines are NOT made using only dilution. Dilution alone would do nothing whatsoever. Many homeopaths are getting tired of reading this highly inaccurate reporting in the media. All homeopathic medicines are made by a process of dilution and SUCCUSSION (potentisation through vigorous shaking - 100 shakes between each potency - i.e. between a 1c and a 2c, between a 2c and a 3c potency, between a 3c and a 4c, etc. etc.) Most homeopathic medicines can be bought in either 6c or 30c from Boots or from health shops. Higher potencies of 200c and 1m (1000c) can be obtained only from homeopathic pharmacies. Succussion is nowadays done by machines, originally by hand. Succussion brings out the formative intelligence of the substance and imprints it upon the 60% distilled water + 40% alcohol medium used to make homeopathic medicines - alcohol acting as a preservative.
Myth No. 3 – homeopathic medicines are unscientific
Homeopathic medicines undergo a scientific 'Proving' where a control group of 50+ healthy volunteers ('Provers') are instructed to keep taking a remedy under trial until they develop symptoms which they must record in detail. Substances that have been rigorously tested include nearly everything on the Periodic Table - metals, minerals and gases as well as plants and even things like snake venom.
The Provers are given a bottle of a new remedy being tested in the 30c potency and must keep taking it until they develop symptoms, which must be carefully recorded and then submitted to a database. The Provers must be healthy and symptom-free to start with so that the symptoms they experience are new ones CAUSED by the remedy.
They must keep a careful daily note of what happens and not discuss it with any of the other Provers. Whatever symptoms the Provers all experienced in common become the black type symptoms of the remedy which are then added to the Materia Medica of homeopathic medicines and Homeopathic Repertory (encyclopedia of symptoms). Thus the curative indications of a remedy are obtained for clinical use.
Symptoms have also been obtained through historical records of accidental poisonings, such as Arsenic and Belladonna. For example, poisoning by Arsenic causes vomitting, diarrhoea, restlessness, anxiety and extreme chill. Therefore you might get a patient in this state (possibly after food poisoning) and Arsenicum in a homepathic tablet will quickly alleviate them.
There are more than 4,000+ homeopathic medicines including nearly everything on the periodic table. But of course all of the remedies tested have been diluted and succussed (potentised), so they are not toxic like modern drugs.
The Homeopathic Materia Medica and Repertory are extremely large books or divided into volumes. The Repertory is divided into sections in this order: Mind, Vertigo, Head, Eye, Vision, Ear, Hearing, Nose, Face, Mouth, Teeth, Throat, External Throat, Stomach, Abdomen, Rectum, Stool, Bladder, Kidney, Prostate Gland, Urethra, Urine, Male, Female, Larynx, Respiration, Cough, Expectoration, Chest, Back, Extremities, Sleep, Dreams, Chill, Fever, Perspiration, Skin, Generals. Obviously some sections are bigger than others!
In the various Repertories, remedies are listed alongside the full range of symptoms (rubrics) in abbreviated form - all information being systematically taken from Provings and clinical practice. Every human state of mind, emotions and body is listed. Symptoms that would mean nothing to a medical doctor can be looked up and the curative remedy found in these huge book. Homeopathy is a study of human nature, endlessly fascinating and how negative states of mind and emotions affect the physical body culminating in illness. Nowadays many homeopaths use computer software programmes which contain all this information.
Myth No. 4 – homeopathic practitioners receive inadequate training
In fact all qualified homeopathic practitioners undergo a three or more years training course at accredited Colleges, which includes Anatomy and Physiology, as well as Pathology and Disease, Materia Medica, Homeopathic Philosophy and study of the Homeopathic Repertory. Yet medical doctors and nurses treat after much shorter homeopathy courses. To be really good, you need to study intensively for about 10 years. Homeopathy is a lifetime's work and you never stop learning.
Myth No. 5 - there are no studies that prove homeopathy works
In the past 24 years there have been more than 180 controlled, and 118 randomized, trials into homeopathy, which were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In each case, the researchers concluded that the benefits of homeopathy went far beyond that which could be explained purely by the placebo effect. Another meta-analysis found that 65 of the 89 trials analysed had produced an effect way beyond placebo (source WDDTY www.wddty.co.uk )
A study of 6500 patients at the Bristol Homeopathic hospital was conducted showing that over 70% of patients reported complete cure or significant improvement of their symptoms. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm
A study on the properties of water was performed by Dr. Rustrum Roy. This paper provides an interdisciplinary base of information on the structure of liquid water.
The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy
Rustum Roy1, W.A. Tiller2, Iris Bell3, M. R. Hoover4
Received: 2 August 2004 Revised: 6 September 2004 Accepted: 14
http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf
http://www.infiniteconferencing.com/Events/nch/051607nch/recording-playback.html
Homeopathy can never be tested properly through conventional trials because each prescription is individualised as every person is unique. Therefore 10 people with arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine. So it is far from ideal to follow the allopathic trial paradigm to test homeopathy. In orthodox medicine trials, all are given the same medicine to be tested. In homeopathy all may be given different medicines!
Anybody who has an understanding of the principles of homeopathy can be left in no doubt that we are dealing with a scientific therapeutic method in the best possible sense: it is based on observation, facts and phenomena and follows the rules of inductive logic that can be tested in daily practice. It is a comprehensive and comprehensible mode of therapy, which in some countries is first line treatment for the whole range of acute and chronic conditions. It has been proven abundantly that it is superior in the treatment of epidemic diseases to allopathy.
It is amazing how people, who like to see themselves on the side of unprejudiced evaluation, can be so blinkered. People pass judgment on homeopathy who have never bothered to study it. Like any science it takes time to learn (especially to learn it correctly) and years of practice to master but the rewards for patients, practitioners and the NHS purse are great. Before those who preach pure science come down on therapies like homeopathy too heavily, they should ask themselves how many of the accepted treatments within the NHS have a scientific evidence base?
With every homeopathic medicine we know exactly the substance it was made from, unlike most modern drugs where we have no clue of the ingredients. This is ironic too as ALL natural health products, whether vitamin, mineral or food supplement must clearly state on the label every single ingredient. When we go to the supermarket or health food shop, we hold up the packet or bottle and read what is in the product, yet people happily swallow prescription drugs with no idea whatsoever what they have taken! They could contain cyanide or any poison and the patient would be none the wiser. With the new class of genetically modified drugs, such as the one used in the Northwick Park drug trial in London, the dangers of a massive allergic reaction, such as the drug testers experienced, are even greater.
Those, who claim to be scientists, should have the ability to at least try to understand different paradigms. If not, they look more like people who have settled on a comfortable view of the world which might soon look very outmoded indeed. As the great musician and conductor Sir Yehudi Menhuin once said: 'Homeopathy is one of the few specialised areas in medicine, which carries no disadvantages but only advantages.'.
Regarding the Horizon programme on homeopathy, Prof. Madeleine Ennis was not involved in the Horizon test. The test was carried out by Wayne Turnbull at Guys hospital, London. It has been conceded that the Horizon test was not an exact replica of Ennis' successful trials. Many of his protocols were different. You can read at this link where he added in an ammonium chloride lysis step which would have ended up killing the very basophils that were such an integral part of the test. http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,55
Ennis' original test was replicated in 4 different labs in 4 different countries.
Dr. Peter Fisher's article in PubMed discusses the 'End of Homeopathy' editorial and meta-analysis published in the Lancet of 26th August 2005 and how nearly 100 successful studies that showed homeopathy worked were thrown out and only a few that were inconclusive were used. Dr. Fisher is the Queen's homeopathic physician and heads the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. (The vitriolic editorial was caused by the World Health Organisation bringing out a draft report in 2005 which was favourable towards homeopathy!)
"The final analysis which concluded that ‘the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects’ was based on just eight clinical trials of homeopathy. The Lancet's press release did not mention this, instead giving the impression that the conclusions were based on all 110 trials." "One of the most serious criticisms is the complete lack of transparency: we have no idea which eight trials were included in the final, damning, analysis." "The literature references are not given, nor any information on the diagnoses, numbers of patients, etc., nor can these be deduced from the article. Prof. Egger has refused several requests to disclose the identity of the eight trials. This is not even a matter of scientific method, but of natural justice: the accused has the right to know the evidence against him."
“The Lancet meta-analysis in 2005 of homeopathic trials was said to be based upon 110 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and 110 clinical trials of allopathy, which were said to be matched but were in fact reduced to 21 trials of homeopathy and 9 of conventional medicine and further reduced to 8 and 6 trials.”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230
Other Responses from the Homeopathic Community on the Lancet Article
http://www.ontariohomeopath.com/Response2.htm
from WDDTY
http://www.zeusinfoservice.com/Articles/ShockingTruth.html
George Vithoulkas' 'Science of Homeopathy' is still considered an excellent exposition of the science.
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/science-of-homeopathy.html
More scientific studies:
http://www.vhan.nl/documents/ScientificReportECHNov04.pdf
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/7
http://www.positivehealth.com/research-list.php?subjectid=134
Myth No. 6 - homeopathic hospitals are a waste of money
There are 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK - in London, Liverpool, Tunbridge Wells, Bristol and Glasgow. They cost the NHS about £6 million a year. Compare that to the £100 billion for the total 2008 annual NHS budget!! These homeopathic hospitals SAVE money for the NHS as the Smallwood report commissioned by Prince Charles has demonstrated.
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/christopher_smallwood_s_report_on_integrated_health_180.html
At one of the earliest debates on the NHS Act 1948 the Government pledged that homoeopathy would continue to be available on the health service as long as there were "patients wishing to receive it and doctors willing to provide it". Many people who depend upon it are alarmed at the possibility that Homeopathy may no longer be available on the NHS. Since the passing of the NHS Act in 1948, a provision has always been made for people to be treated at homeopathic hospitals in the UK and until PCTs began to stop referring patients, there had indeed been long waiting lists, some 6 months or more.
See this letter sent out to all Primary Care Trusts in 2006 signed by a group of professors hostile to homeopathy and putting pressure on PCTs not to refer patients to the 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK. They wrote the letter on NHS headed paper!
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/Baum%20letter.pdf
Myth No. 7 – Cure with homeopathy is simply the Placebo Effect.
When Prince Charles treats his farm animals at Highgrove with homeopathic medicines do they know that a remedy has been put in the water they drink? Farmers successfully use homeopathic medicines for their cows suffering from mastitis. Does a tiny baby know when their fever drops dramatically using Belladonna or Aconite, that they have been given a homeopathic medicine?! As anyone who has treated animals and babies with homoepathic medicines will tell you, homeopathy works even better on animals and babies than it does on adults! If proof were needed, this is it. Not placebo.
Perhaps the most striking research on homeopathy that goes some way to debunking the placebo argument is when homeopathic remedies are tested on live tissue in a petri dish or studies involving animals (mice in this case) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3208528.stm
Myth No. 8 - homeopathic medicines contain no molecules
Any remedy under a 12c or a 24x potency still contains the original molecules of the substance and this is known as Avogadro's number. These low potencies are most suitable for physical illness of long duration as well as to heal specific organs that are not functioning properly.
Myth No. 9 – ‘Anecdotal Evidence’ does not constitute scientific evidence!
Most medical, surgical procedures and drug usage are not backed by studies - only by anecdotal evidence. According to the US Government's Office of Technology Assessment (Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment: Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978), only 10-20% of all medical procedures and off-label drug usage are backed by clinical studies.
Strong anecdotal evidence among informed professionals is actually quite reliable - at least as reliable as clinical testing.
Many clinical tests come to diametrically opposed conclusions. You could say that the problem was discovered through anecdotal evidence - and merely confirmed through a peer reviewed study.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/peerReviewUnderTheSpotlight.php
The problem isn't with the use of anecdotal evidence. It's with the double standard applied by the establishment (medical and regulatory) that holds complementary medicine to an absurdly higher standard, allowing medical doctors to do pretty much whatever they want. If informed anecdotal evidence is allowable for 85% of all medical procedure and drug usage, why is alternative health held to an impossible 0% standard?
Millions of people worldwide testify that homeopathy cures their illnesses yet apparently that cannot be construed as 'evidence'.
If a person were to walk out of their house to the town centre and witness someone having their bag snatched or witness a car accident, then when they relay this information to the Police or to their friends and family, it is anecdotal evidence.
If someone go on holiday, stays at a nice hotel, eats delicious food, comes back home and relates the holiday to their friends, that is anecdotal evidence.
Does that mean that the above never happened? According to the detractors of complementary or alternative medicine, yes it does!
Millions of people have been cured of their diseases or afflictions using homeopathy, herbs, healing, vitamin supplements, special diets and on and on. Yet according to orthodox medicine all of these cures are anecdotal evidence and as such do not merit any further investigation, study, or validity. As far as orthodox medicine is concerned, these cures never happened.
Yet what if someone witnessed a car accident and the Police wanted them to make a statement? Would the statement in court be dismissed as anecdotal evidence? Would the police, even if they arrived at the scene of the accident to find the person still there comforting the passengers or trying to help, say they had not been there and their evidence is non existent? I don’t think so.
So how for so long have we put up with the top dogs in the medical establishment dismissing our cures as total nonsense, figments of our imagination, placebo cures, or outright lies?
How when millions are cured around the world using homeopathic medicines, can these cures be dismissed as unworthy of attention, simply ‘anecdotal evidence’.
Orthodox medicine implies through this that all cures with alternative medicine are untrue or simply imagined. Even when all the evidence is put before them, they become angry and even aggressive, simply refusing to see or to listen.
All the case notes in the surgery show that Mr. A had arthritis for 5 years, had been on anti-flammatory medicines, yet after homeopathic treatment for 6 months, the arthritis is cured. The reaction of the doctor is either disbelief or an attitude where they will not talk about it and do not want to know.
Of course there are some orthodox doctors who practise acupuncture, homeopathy or herbs themselves and who do believe that these therapies cured the patient but they are in the small minority.
It is always the top cancer specialists and professors whose lives and vested interests are the most challenged by the idea that anything other than pharmaceutical drugs or surgical interventions can cure the patient.
Yet pharmaceutical drugs cure nothing. They merely SUPPRESS the symptoms driving them deeper into the body of the patient.
Hence the eczema patient whose skin symptoms have been suppressed, goes on to develop asthma. The arthritic patient whose joint pains are suppressed, eventually will go on to develop heart disease.
The doctor makes no connection whatsoever that their drugs have created these deeper illnesses but just goes on to give the patient more and more powerful drugs, making the patient sicker still. Then when they die, they say, ‘We did everything we could’. Yes and you killed the patient!
After homeopathic treatment, careful analysis is taken of the Direction of Cure of the patient’s symptoms. Constance Hering was a converted skeptic of homeopathy. As a young man in Germany in the early nineteenth century, Hering had been assigned the task of reviewing Homeopathy because his medical mentor (a fervent anti-homeopath) had been asked by a publisher to write a book exposing homeopathy as unworthy. Having been given this task, Hering conducted a detailed study but concluded the opposite from the requested results! He was the first to talk about the Law of Cure which says that symptoms are cured from above down, from the inside out and in the reverse order of their appearance. This has stood the test of time in clinical experience. A simple example would be after a curative remedy is given for eczema all over the body, we would see the eczema start to move down and when it is only on the ankles, we know it is nearly cured.
The body is always intelligent. That is why the human race has survived. When a baby is conceived, Nature chooses the best genes from both parents in order to create a stronger, healthier human. If the parents are both taking drugs of any kind, whether legal or illegal, the health of the baby will be compromised.
If only doctors and scientists would study Nature, they would find all the answers and instead of going against it, learn from it. There is only one true science and that is the science of Nature.
The human race has survived because we all have an innate healing power in our bodies. In homeopathy for example, this is called the Vital Force. Homeopathy stimulates the vital force to heal the body, through like for like (using a potentised substance that would cause the symptoms but in a tiny dose acts as a catalyst for healing).
So in conclusion, there is no question that dismissing cures as Anecdotal Evidence through the use of natural medicine, is nothing more than a whitewash and a desperate means of suppressing the knowledge of those cures to the public as a whole.
Samuel Hahnemann
Hahnemann was a doctor but gave up his practice because he was appalled at the poisonous side effects of most available medicine. He started experimenting and did something rather novel - he took some quinine, while perfectly healthy. He observed that the effect on him was identical to a malarial attack: alternating fever with heat and chills. This is where homeopathy started: a substance, given to a healthy individual, causes symptoms. If given to someone who suffers those symptoms, it will thus neutralise the sickness.
After his observations on quinine, Hahnemann went on to test hundreds of substances on himself and willing, healthy volunteers, used the tested substances for matching symptoms in his patients and all the while kept accounts of detailed observations.
Of course, Hahnemann had an antecedent, still well-known today because all doctors still swear an oath to him to promise best medical practice: Hippocrates. Hippocrates stated that there were two laws of healing – the law of opposites (allopathy) and the law of similars (homeopathy). A Greek physician called Galen had laid these rules down in about 150 AD. Homeopathic theories are based on fixed principles of the Laws of Nature which do not change - unlike medical theories which are constantly changing! Homeopathy is both a science and an art.
Far from being ideas-based, this is completely evidence-based, empirical medicine an almost unique concept at the time. After some years of practicing like this, Hahnemann was still not satisfied. The substances he was using, while more effective than normal medical practice, were still having side effects. Or, if he reduced dosage too far, there was no effect. This is when he developed the concept of potentisation, the serial dilution that opponents of homeopathy deride.
Treating the Whole Person or Holistic Healing
We are not just a collection of parts to be fixed as doctors treat us but ALWAYS operating as a whole person ALL of the time. In other words medicines are chosen that treat the whole person and not just the part. This may seem strange to grasp and yet doesn't it in fact make total sense? Do we leave our sore throat on the desk of the physician as we leave the doctor's surgery? Or our arthritic knee behind. No, every single tiny function of our body operates as a WHOLE, all of the time. You cannot treat one thing and not affect the rest. That is why pharma drugs are so dangerous as for example, in treating a cancerous tumour, the medicine will affect and disturb the other systems of the body.
We are all energy beings. http://www.workingwithenergy.co.uk/energy_centres.htm
The electricity in our bodies transmits messages to all parts/systems of the body. Illness is caused when these messages are not getting through. All systems of the body are communicating with each other at all times. Water is a great conductor of electricity and it transmits the electrical current. This is how homeopathic mediums work – by communicating a current/pattern/frequency of energy via the whole human body to jump start the body’s own inherent healing mechanisms.
Homeopathy treats different sorts of people with distinct characters and personalities as well as different physical looks and natures. It individualises each person and looks at their symptoms AS A WHOLE.
Is it not true that no two people are alike? That every person is unique? This is why you could line up 20 people with asthma and they might all need a different homeopathic medicine. There are in fact about 250 homeopathic medicines for asthma but the correct one for each person must be selected taking into consideration such things as what makes the condition better or worse, what time of day it comes on, whether the person is hot or cold, worse for damp, need fresh air or prefer the windows closed and so on. You would be amazed how each person's symptoms are so different and yet they have all been diagnosed with asthma.
If people want to improve their looks, homeopathy does just that. When you are healthy and well, you obviously look better! Homeopathic practitioners believe in PREVENTION, having treatment can prevent illness rather than leaving it to the surgeon’s knife. There are thousands of homeopathic medicines which treat every ailment known to man, truly the most wonderful science on this planet.
Many people buy self help books or think they can treat themselves with over the counter remedies. This is a short term solution. The reason is as stated above. You cannot treat individual symptoms without taking into consideration the rest of you! Only a qualified and experienced homeopath who will spend 1-2 hours taking your full medical history and all of your symptoms can prescribe the remedy that fits best. In other words if you have hayfever, the homeopath will take into consideration all other physical symptoms a as well as your personality, to come to the correct prescription. Itchy, watery, red eyes, worse morning and evening would be Sulphur but only if all the other things about you fit the Sulphur picture. You cannot prescribe for yourself as you cannot take all of it into consideration at once. So if for example you buy Natrum Mur. for your hayfever (which is also an excellent remedy for this), it may work for a bit if you are healthy but the hayfever will come back, will not be cured for good, because it was not the remedy that fitted best.
The only exception to this rule is in the treatment of first aid and even then it often has to be individualised. An example of when it does not is having a molar removed at the dentist. Firstly you would take Arnica for bruising of the gums, secondly Hypericum for the pain as the anaesthetic wears off (will remove pain completely), thirdly Ledum for injection and fourthly Calendula (the remedy not the cream!) for fast healing of the gums (or any other injury). Symphytum is the great healer of broken bones.
Homeopaths believe that illnesses manifest for three reasons: firstly they are genetically inherited from our parents, grandparents, forefathers. Secondly, they can be caused by an traumatic event such as death of a loved one, divorce, job loss - any event that has a serious impact upon the person. Thirdly they can be caused from drugs taken by our parents (passed onto the foetus) or by ourselves. There is also of course accidents and injury.
Inherited disease can be traced back to one or more of what homeopaths call MIASMS - these are syphilis, gonorrhoea, psora (scabies), tuberculosis and cancer. We are all a mix of all of these as especially TB, dates back thousands of years. However one or more of the miasms is uppermost in a person and is an important aspect of the case-taking to determine the appropriate medicines.
So many people are in total ignorance of the VAST amount of study needed to become an expert in this field. Also there are hundreds of homeopathic books only available at specialist bookshops, many printed in India where homeopathy is more popular than orthodox medicine.
Attacks on Homeopathy
After the ever increasing attacks on alternative medicine in the media and in particular homeopathy, once again Professor Edzard Ernst, the 'first professor of complementary medicine' (whose qualifications for the job are still in question) discredits homeopathy. Yet in an interview with Geoff Watts in 2003
http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/04/01/careers/25.php
entitled 'A Scientist in the Alternative Camp', Professor Ernst stated:
"Our family doctor in the little village outside Munich where I grew up was a homoeopath. My mother swore by it. As a kid I was treated homoeopathically. So this kind of medicine just came naturally. Even during my studies I pursued other things like massage therapy and acupuncture."
"As a young doctor I had an appointment in a homoeopathic hospital, and I was very impressed with its success rate. My boss told me that much of this success came from discontinuing mainstream medication. This made a big impression on me."
The truth is that homeopathy is getting ever more popular and the drugs companies are putting out their spin in overdrive through their science and media PR operation outlets to counteract this in any way they can.
The reason there is this incessant assault in the press against homeopathy is because Pharma wields enormous power over the media and because the popularity of homeopathy has been increasing due to side effects of modern medicine. Also, unlike other natural therapies, it is pills and in direct competition.
At leat six million people use complementary treatments each year in the UK, which offers clinically-effective and cost-effective solutions to common health problems faced by NHS patients.
Historical Facts
In view of the highly inaccurate reporting and vitriolic attacks in the recent press coverage on homeopathy, I would like to point out some little known historical facts concerning homeopathy.
The practice of homeopathic medicine flourished in both Europe and the US during the 1800s and early 1900s and was spectacularly popular with European royalty and the British aristocracy, American entrepreneurs, literary giants, and religious leaders.
John D. Rockefeller referred to it as 'a progressive and aggressive step in medicine' and was under homeopathic care throughout the latter part of his life living to 99 years of age. A strong advocate of homeopathy, major grants of between $300-$400 million he intended for homeopathic institutions were instead used for orthodox medical institutions in the early 1900s, under pressure from his son and his financial advisor, Frederick Gates. (Source Dana Ullman)
In the United States in the early 1900s there were 22 homeopathic medical schools and over 100 homeopathic hospitals, 60 orphanages and old people's homes and 1,000+ homeopathic pharmacies. Members of the American Medical Association had great animosity towards homeopathy after its formation in 1847 and it was decided to purge all local medical societies of physicians who were homeopaths. This purge was successful in every state except Massachusetts because homoepathy was so strong among the elite of Boston.
The AMA wanted to keep homoepaths out of their societies and discourage any type of association with homeopaths. In 1855 the AMA established a code of ethics which stated that orthodox physicians would lose their membership if they even consulted with a homeopath. If a physician lost his membership, it meant that in some States he no longer had a licence to practice medicine.
Drug companies were antagonistic towards homeopathy, collectively trying to suppress it. The medical journals they published were used as mouthpieces against homeopathy and in support of orthodox medicine.
At an AMA meeting, a respected orthodox physician said: 'We must admit that we never fought the homeopath on matters of principles; we fought him because he came into the community and got the business.' Economic issues played a major role in what was allowed to be practised.
Homeopathy attracted support from many of the most respected members of society in the US, such as William James, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Louisa M. Alcott, Mark Twain, former American Presidents James Garfield and William McKinley. In Britain among its supporters were George Bernard Shaw, Charles Dickens, W.B. Yeats, William Thackarey, Benjamin Disraeli, Yehudi Menuhin. Other famous supporters were Dostoevsky, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Mahatma Ghandi.
Nowadays, celebrities using and supporting homeopathy are many and include among others : Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tina Turner, Whoopi Goldberg, Pamela Anderson, Jane Fonda, Cher, Rosie O'Donnell, Martin Sheen, the Chilli Peppers, Jane Seymour, Lesley Anne Warren, Mariel Hemingway, Lindsay Wagner, Paul McCartney, Axl Rose, Linda Gray, Susan Blakely, Michael Franks, Cybil Sheppard, Dizzy Gillespie, Vidal Sassoon, Angelica Houston, Boris Becker, Martina Navratilova, David Beckham, Priscilla and Lisa Marie Presley, Cliff Robertson, Jerry Hall, Diane von Furstenberg, Ashley Judd, Naomi Judd, Olivia Newton-John, Julianna Margulies, JD Salinger, Blythe Danner, Pat Riley (coach of the Miami Heat). The list of famous people who supported homeopathy is endless.....
See 'The Homeopathic Revolution' by Dana Ullman MPH www.homeopathicrevolution.com
The aristocratic patronage of homeopathy in the UK extending well into the 1940s and beyond can be easily demonstrated. In the Homeopathic Medical Directories there are lists of patrons of the dispensaries and hospitals. They read like an extract from Burke’s or Debrett’s.
(See A History of Homeopathy in Britain by Peter Morrell, Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Staffordshire University, UK.)
www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/articles/ukhomhistory.shtml
Homeopathy is practised nowadays in countries all over the world and is especially popular in France, South America and India where there are around 250,000 homeopathic doctors! In a recent Global TGI survey where people were asked whether they trust homeopathy the following percentages of people living in urban areas said Yes: 62% in India, 58% Brazil, 53% Saudi Arabia, Chile 49%, United Arab Emirates 49%, France 40%, South Africa 35%, Russia 28%, Germany 27%, Argentina 25%, Hungary 25%, USA 18%, UK 15%.
An article which Louise wrote a while back is accordingly a must-read! Have a look too at http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk
"In this article, I would like to dispel a plethora of myths surrounding homeopathy which have been used to discredit this highly efficacious healing art and science. Homeopaths are given few opportunities in the media to defend their profession, so a lot of misconceptions abound. The medical profession in general presents a fierce and blinkered opposition, yet as Big Pharma is learning of all sorts of amazing cured cases, they are determined to stamp out competition via EU regulation.
Myth No. 1 – Homeopathic medicines cure nothing.
Homeopathy works by stimulating the body’s OWN healing mechanisms, through like for like. A substance that would cause symptoms in a healthy person can be used to cure the same symptoms in a sick person by giving a minute, highly potentised dose of that substance acting as a catalyst to jump start their own healing mechanisms. Everyone of us has our own natural innate healing powers. All that is needed is the correct stimulus to kick start it. In healthy people this may just be rest and good food but many people become 'stuck' in their physical, emotional or mental illness and cannot recover. Of course there are different levels of health and the choice of potency given should reflect that. Low potencies are given for very physically ill people and higher for those whose problems are emotional or of the mind. Homeopathy is very successful in treating emotional problems such as stress, anxiety and fears.
Myth No 2 – Homeopathic medicines are just water
Homeopathic medicines are NOT made using only dilution. Dilution alone would do nothing whatsoever. Many homeopaths are getting tired of reading this highly inaccurate reporting in the media. All homeopathic medicines are made by a process of dilution and SUCCUSSION (potentisation through vigorous shaking - 100 shakes between each potency - i.e. between a 1c and a 2c, between a 2c and a 3c potency, between a 3c and a 4c, etc. etc.) Most homeopathic medicines can be bought in either 6c or 30c from Boots or from health shops. Higher potencies of 200c and 1m (1000c) can be obtained only from homeopathic pharmacies. Succussion is nowadays done by machines, originally by hand. Succussion brings out the formative intelligence of the substance and imprints it upon the 60% distilled water + 40% alcohol medium used to make homeopathic medicines - alcohol acting as a preservative.
Myth No. 3 – homeopathic medicines are unscientific
Homeopathic medicines undergo a scientific 'Proving' where a control group of 50+ healthy volunteers ('Provers') are instructed to keep taking a remedy under trial until they develop symptoms which they must record in detail. Substances that have been rigorously tested include nearly everything on the Periodic Table - metals, minerals and gases as well as plants and even things like snake venom.
The Provers are given a bottle of a new remedy being tested in the 30c potency and must keep taking it until they develop symptoms, which must be carefully recorded and then submitted to a database. The Provers must be healthy and symptom-free to start with so that the symptoms they experience are new ones CAUSED by the remedy.
They must keep a careful daily note of what happens and not discuss it with any of the other Provers. Whatever symptoms the Provers all experienced in common become the black type symptoms of the remedy which are then added to the Materia Medica of homeopathic medicines and Homeopathic Repertory (encyclopedia of symptoms). Thus the curative indications of a remedy are obtained for clinical use.
Symptoms have also been obtained through historical records of accidental poisonings, such as Arsenic and Belladonna. For example, poisoning by Arsenic causes vomitting, diarrhoea, restlessness, anxiety and extreme chill. Therefore you might get a patient in this state (possibly after food poisoning) and Arsenicum in a homepathic tablet will quickly alleviate them.
There are more than 4,000+ homeopathic medicines including nearly everything on the periodic table. But of course all of the remedies tested have been diluted and succussed (potentised), so they are not toxic like modern drugs.
The Homeopathic Materia Medica and Repertory are extremely large books or divided into volumes. The Repertory is divided into sections in this order: Mind, Vertigo, Head, Eye, Vision, Ear, Hearing, Nose, Face, Mouth, Teeth, Throat, External Throat, Stomach, Abdomen, Rectum, Stool, Bladder, Kidney, Prostate Gland, Urethra, Urine, Male, Female, Larynx, Respiration, Cough, Expectoration, Chest, Back, Extremities, Sleep, Dreams, Chill, Fever, Perspiration, Skin, Generals. Obviously some sections are bigger than others!
In the various Repertories, remedies are listed alongside the full range of symptoms (rubrics) in abbreviated form - all information being systematically taken from Provings and clinical practice. Every human state of mind, emotions and body is listed. Symptoms that would mean nothing to a medical doctor can be looked up and the curative remedy found in these huge book. Homeopathy is a study of human nature, endlessly fascinating and how negative states of mind and emotions affect the physical body culminating in illness. Nowadays many homeopaths use computer software programmes which contain all this information.
Myth No. 4 – homeopathic practitioners receive inadequate training
In fact all qualified homeopathic practitioners undergo a three or more years training course at accredited Colleges, which includes Anatomy and Physiology, as well as Pathology and Disease, Materia Medica, Homeopathic Philosophy and study of the Homeopathic Repertory. Yet medical doctors and nurses treat after much shorter homeopathy courses. To be really good, you need to study intensively for about 10 years. Homeopathy is a lifetime's work and you never stop learning.
Myth No. 5 - there are no studies that prove homeopathy works
In the past 24 years there have been more than 180 controlled, and 118 randomized, trials into homeopathy, which were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In each case, the researchers concluded that the benefits of homeopathy went far beyond that which could be explained purely by the placebo effect. Another meta-analysis found that 65 of the 89 trials analysed had produced an effect way beyond placebo (source WDDTY www.wddty.co.uk )
A study of 6500 patients at the Bristol Homeopathic hospital was conducted showing that over 70% of patients reported complete cure or significant improvement of their symptoms. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm
A study on the properties of water was performed by Dr. Rustrum Roy. This paper provides an interdisciplinary base of information on the structure of liquid water.
The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy
Rustum Roy1, W.A. Tiller2, Iris Bell3, M. R. Hoover4
Received: 2 August 2004 Revised: 6 September 2004 Accepted: 14
http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf
http://www.infiniteconferencing.com/Events/nch/051607nch/recording-playback.html
Homeopathy can never be tested properly through conventional trials because each prescription is individualised as every person is unique. Therefore 10 people with arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine. So it is far from ideal to follow the allopathic trial paradigm to test homeopathy. In orthodox medicine trials, all are given the same medicine to be tested. In homeopathy all may be given different medicines!
Anybody who has an understanding of the principles of homeopathy can be left in no doubt that we are dealing with a scientific therapeutic method in the best possible sense: it is based on observation, facts and phenomena and follows the rules of inductive logic that can be tested in daily practice. It is a comprehensive and comprehensible mode of therapy, which in some countries is first line treatment for the whole range of acute and chronic conditions. It has been proven abundantly that it is superior in the treatment of epidemic diseases to allopathy.
It is amazing how people, who like to see themselves on the side of unprejudiced evaluation, can be so blinkered. People pass judgment on homeopathy who have never bothered to study it. Like any science it takes time to learn (especially to learn it correctly) and years of practice to master but the rewards for patients, practitioners and the NHS purse are great. Before those who preach pure science come down on therapies like homeopathy too heavily, they should ask themselves how many of the accepted treatments within the NHS have a scientific evidence base?
With every homeopathic medicine we know exactly the substance it was made from, unlike most modern drugs where we have no clue of the ingredients. This is ironic too as ALL natural health products, whether vitamin, mineral or food supplement must clearly state on the label every single ingredient. When we go to the supermarket or health food shop, we hold up the packet or bottle and read what is in the product, yet people happily swallow prescription drugs with no idea whatsoever what they have taken! They could contain cyanide or any poison and the patient would be none the wiser. With the new class of genetically modified drugs, such as the one used in the Northwick Park drug trial in London, the dangers of a massive allergic reaction, such as the drug testers experienced, are even greater.
Those, who claim to be scientists, should have the ability to at least try to understand different paradigms. If not, they look more like people who have settled on a comfortable view of the world which might soon look very outmoded indeed. As the great musician and conductor Sir Yehudi Menhuin once said: 'Homeopathy is one of the few specialised areas in medicine, which carries no disadvantages but only advantages.'.
Regarding the Horizon programme on homeopathy, Prof. Madeleine Ennis was not involved in the Horizon test. The test was carried out by Wayne Turnbull at Guys hospital, London. It has been conceded that the Horizon test was not an exact replica of Ennis' successful trials. Many of his protocols were different. You can read at this link where he added in an ammonium chloride lysis step which would have ended up killing the very basophils that were such an integral part of the test. http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,55
Ennis' original test was replicated in 4 different labs in 4 different countries.
Dr. Peter Fisher's article in PubMed discusses the 'End of Homeopathy' editorial and meta-analysis published in the Lancet of 26th August 2005 and how nearly 100 successful studies that showed homeopathy worked were thrown out and only a few that were inconclusive were used. Dr. Fisher is the Queen's homeopathic physician and heads the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. (The vitriolic editorial was caused by the World Health Organisation bringing out a draft report in 2005 which was favourable towards homeopathy!)
"The final analysis which concluded that ‘the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects’ was based on just eight clinical trials of homeopathy. The Lancet's press release did not mention this, instead giving the impression that the conclusions were based on all 110 trials." "One of the most serious criticisms is the complete lack of transparency: we have no idea which eight trials were included in the final, damning, analysis." "The literature references are not given, nor any information on the diagnoses, numbers of patients, etc., nor can these be deduced from the article. Prof. Egger has refused several requests to disclose the identity of the eight trials. This is not even a matter of scientific method, but of natural justice: the accused has the right to know the evidence against him."
“The Lancet meta-analysis in 2005 of homeopathic trials was said to be based upon 110 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and 110 clinical trials of allopathy, which were said to be matched but were in fact reduced to 21 trials of homeopathy and 9 of conventional medicine and further reduced to 8 and 6 trials.”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230
Other Responses from the Homeopathic Community on the Lancet Article
http://www.ontariohomeopath.com/Response2.htm
from WDDTY
http://www.zeusinfoservice.com/Articles/ShockingTruth.html
George Vithoulkas' 'Science of Homeopathy' is still considered an excellent exposition of the science.
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/science-of-homeopathy.html
More scientific studies:
http://www.vhan.nl/documents/ScientificReportECHNov04.pdf
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/7
http://www.positivehealth.com/research-list.php?subjectid=134
Myth No. 6 - homeopathic hospitals are a waste of money
There are 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK - in London, Liverpool, Tunbridge Wells, Bristol and Glasgow. They cost the NHS about £6 million a year. Compare that to the £100 billion for the total 2008 annual NHS budget!! These homeopathic hospitals SAVE money for the NHS as the Smallwood report commissioned by Prince Charles has demonstrated.
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/christopher_smallwood_s_report_on_integrated_health_180.html
At one of the earliest debates on the NHS Act 1948 the Government pledged that homoeopathy would continue to be available on the health service as long as there were "patients wishing to receive it and doctors willing to provide it". Many people who depend upon it are alarmed at the possibility that Homeopathy may no longer be available on the NHS. Since the passing of the NHS Act in 1948, a provision has always been made for people to be treated at homeopathic hospitals in the UK and until PCTs began to stop referring patients, there had indeed been long waiting lists, some 6 months or more.
See this letter sent out to all Primary Care Trusts in 2006 signed by a group of professors hostile to homeopathy and putting pressure on PCTs not to refer patients to the 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK. They wrote the letter on NHS headed paper!
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/Baum%20letter.pdf
Myth No. 7 – Cure with homeopathy is simply the Placebo Effect.
When Prince Charles treats his farm animals at Highgrove with homeopathic medicines do they know that a remedy has been put in the water they drink? Farmers successfully use homeopathic medicines for their cows suffering from mastitis. Does a tiny baby know when their fever drops dramatically using Belladonna or Aconite, that they have been given a homeopathic medicine?! As anyone who has treated animals and babies with homoepathic medicines will tell you, homeopathy works even better on animals and babies than it does on adults! If proof were needed, this is it. Not placebo.
Perhaps the most striking research on homeopathy that goes some way to debunking the placebo argument is when homeopathic remedies are tested on live tissue in a petri dish or studies involving animals (mice in this case) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3208528.stm
Myth No. 8 - homeopathic medicines contain no molecules
Any remedy under a 12c or a 24x potency still contains the original molecules of the substance and this is known as Avogadro's number. These low potencies are most suitable for physical illness of long duration as well as to heal specific organs that are not functioning properly.
Myth No. 9 – ‘Anecdotal Evidence’ does not constitute scientific evidence!
Most medical, surgical procedures and drug usage are not backed by studies - only by anecdotal evidence. According to the US Government's Office of Technology Assessment (Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment: Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978), only 10-20% of all medical procedures and off-label drug usage are backed by clinical studies.
Strong anecdotal evidence among informed professionals is actually quite reliable - at least as reliable as clinical testing.
Many clinical tests come to diametrically opposed conclusions. You could say that the problem was discovered through anecdotal evidence - and merely confirmed through a peer reviewed study.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/peerReviewUnderTheSpotlight.php
The problem isn't with the use of anecdotal evidence. It's with the double standard applied by the establishment (medical and regulatory) that holds complementary medicine to an absurdly higher standard, allowing medical doctors to do pretty much whatever they want. If informed anecdotal evidence is allowable for 85% of all medical procedure and drug usage, why is alternative health held to an impossible 0% standard?
Millions of people worldwide testify that homeopathy cures their illnesses yet apparently that cannot be construed as 'evidence'.
If a person were to walk out of their house to the town centre and witness someone having their bag snatched or witness a car accident, then when they relay this information to the Police or to their friends and family, it is anecdotal evidence.
If someone go on holiday, stays at a nice hotel, eats delicious food, comes back home and relates the holiday to their friends, that is anecdotal evidence.
Does that mean that the above never happened? According to the detractors of complementary or alternative medicine, yes it does!
Millions of people have been cured of their diseases or afflictions using homeopathy, herbs, healing, vitamin supplements, special diets and on and on. Yet according to orthodox medicine all of these cures are anecdotal evidence and as such do not merit any further investigation, study, or validity. As far as orthodox medicine is concerned, these cures never happened.
Yet what if someone witnessed a car accident and the Police wanted them to make a statement? Would the statement in court be dismissed as anecdotal evidence? Would the police, even if they arrived at the scene of the accident to find the person still there comforting the passengers or trying to help, say they had not been there and their evidence is non existent? I don’t think so.
So how for so long have we put up with the top dogs in the medical establishment dismissing our cures as total nonsense, figments of our imagination, placebo cures, or outright lies?
How when millions are cured around the world using homeopathic medicines, can these cures be dismissed as unworthy of attention, simply ‘anecdotal evidence’.
Orthodox medicine implies through this that all cures with alternative medicine are untrue or simply imagined. Even when all the evidence is put before them, they become angry and even aggressive, simply refusing to see or to listen.
All the case notes in the surgery show that Mr. A had arthritis for 5 years, had been on anti-flammatory medicines, yet after homeopathic treatment for 6 months, the arthritis is cured. The reaction of the doctor is either disbelief or an attitude where they will not talk about it and do not want to know.
Of course there are some orthodox doctors who practise acupuncture, homeopathy or herbs themselves and who do believe that these therapies cured the patient but they are in the small minority.
It is always the top cancer specialists and professors whose lives and vested interests are the most challenged by the idea that anything other than pharmaceutical drugs or surgical interventions can cure the patient.
Yet pharmaceutical drugs cure nothing. They merely SUPPRESS the symptoms driving them deeper into the body of the patient.
Hence the eczema patient whose skin symptoms have been suppressed, goes on to develop asthma. The arthritic patient whose joint pains are suppressed, eventually will go on to develop heart disease.
The doctor makes no connection whatsoever that their drugs have created these deeper illnesses but just goes on to give the patient more and more powerful drugs, making the patient sicker still. Then when they die, they say, ‘We did everything we could’. Yes and you killed the patient!
After homeopathic treatment, careful analysis is taken of the Direction of Cure of the patient’s symptoms. Constance Hering was a converted skeptic of homeopathy. As a young man in Germany in the early nineteenth century, Hering had been assigned the task of reviewing Homeopathy because his medical mentor (a fervent anti-homeopath) had been asked by a publisher to write a book exposing homeopathy as unworthy. Having been given this task, Hering conducted a detailed study but concluded the opposite from the requested results! He was the first to talk about the Law of Cure which says that symptoms are cured from above down, from the inside out and in the reverse order of their appearance. This has stood the test of time in clinical experience. A simple example would be after a curative remedy is given for eczema all over the body, we would see the eczema start to move down and when it is only on the ankles, we know it is nearly cured.
The body is always intelligent. That is why the human race has survived. When a baby is conceived, Nature chooses the best genes from both parents in order to create a stronger, healthier human. If the parents are both taking drugs of any kind, whether legal or illegal, the health of the baby will be compromised.
If only doctors and scientists would study Nature, they would find all the answers and instead of going against it, learn from it. There is only one true science and that is the science of Nature.
The human race has survived because we all have an innate healing power in our bodies. In homeopathy for example, this is called the Vital Force. Homeopathy stimulates the vital force to heal the body, through like for like (using a potentised substance that would cause the symptoms but in a tiny dose acts as a catalyst for healing).
So in conclusion, there is no question that dismissing cures as Anecdotal Evidence through the use of natural medicine, is nothing more than a whitewash and a desperate means of suppressing the knowledge of those cures to the public as a whole.
Samuel Hahnemann
Hahnemann was a doctor but gave up his practice because he was appalled at the poisonous side effects of most available medicine. He started experimenting and did something rather novel - he took some quinine, while perfectly healthy. He observed that the effect on him was identical to a malarial attack: alternating fever with heat and chills. This is where homeopathy started: a substance, given to a healthy individual, causes symptoms. If given to someone who suffers those symptoms, it will thus neutralise the sickness.
After his observations on quinine, Hahnemann went on to test hundreds of substances on himself and willing, healthy volunteers, used the tested substances for matching symptoms in his patients and all the while kept accounts of detailed observations.
Of course, Hahnemann had an antecedent, still well-known today because all doctors still swear an oath to him to promise best medical practice: Hippocrates. Hippocrates stated that there were two laws of healing – the law of opposites (allopathy) and the law of similars (homeopathy). A Greek physician called Galen had laid these rules down in about 150 AD. Homeopathic theories are based on fixed principles of the Laws of Nature which do not change - unlike medical theories which are constantly changing! Homeopathy is both a science and an art.
Far from being ideas-based, this is completely evidence-based, empirical medicine an almost unique concept at the time. After some years of practicing like this, Hahnemann was still not satisfied. The substances he was using, while more effective than normal medical practice, were still having side effects. Or, if he reduced dosage too far, there was no effect. This is when he developed the concept of potentisation, the serial dilution that opponents of homeopathy deride.
Treating the Whole Person or Holistic Healing
We are not just a collection of parts to be fixed as doctors treat us but ALWAYS operating as a whole person ALL of the time. In other words medicines are chosen that treat the whole person and not just the part. This may seem strange to grasp and yet doesn't it in fact make total sense? Do we leave our sore throat on the desk of the physician as we leave the doctor's surgery? Or our arthritic knee behind. No, every single tiny function of our body operates as a WHOLE, all of the time. You cannot treat one thing and not affect the rest. That is why pharma drugs are so dangerous as for example, in treating a cancerous tumour, the medicine will affect and disturb the other systems of the body.
We are all energy beings. http://www.workingwithenergy.co.uk/energy_centres.htm
The electricity in our bodies transmits messages to all parts/systems of the body. Illness is caused when these messages are not getting through. All systems of the body are communicating with each other at all times. Water is a great conductor of electricity and it transmits the electrical current. This is how homeopathic mediums work – by communicating a current/pattern/frequency of energy via the whole human body to jump start the body’s own inherent healing mechanisms.
Homeopathy treats different sorts of people with distinct characters and personalities as well as different physical looks and natures. It individualises each person and looks at their symptoms AS A WHOLE.
Is it not true that no two people are alike? That every person is unique? This is why you could line up 20 people with asthma and they might all need a different homeopathic medicine. There are in fact about 250 homeopathic medicines for asthma but the correct one for each person must be selected taking into consideration such things as what makes the condition better or worse, what time of day it comes on, whether the person is hot or cold, worse for damp, need fresh air or prefer the windows closed and so on. You would be amazed how each person's symptoms are so different and yet they have all been diagnosed with asthma.
If people want to improve their looks, homeopathy does just that. When you are healthy and well, you obviously look better! Homeopathic practitioners believe in PREVENTION, having treatment can prevent illness rather than leaving it to the surgeon’s knife. There are thousands of homeopathic medicines which treat every ailment known to man, truly the most wonderful science on this planet.
Many people buy self help books or think they can treat themselves with over the counter remedies. This is a short term solution. The reason is as stated above. You cannot treat individual symptoms without taking into consideration the rest of you! Only a qualified and experienced homeopath who will spend 1-2 hours taking your full medical history and all of your symptoms can prescribe the remedy that fits best. In other words if you have hayfever, the homeopath will take into consideration all other physical symptoms a as well as your personality, to come to the correct prescription. Itchy, watery, red eyes, worse morning and evening would be Sulphur but only if all the other things about you fit the Sulphur picture. You cannot prescribe for yourself as you cannot take all of it into consideration at once. So if for example you buy Natrum Mur. for your hayfever (which is also an excellent remedy for this), it may work for a bit if you are healthy but the hayfever will come back, will not be cured for good, because it was not the remedy that fitted best.
The only exception to this rule is in the treatment of first aid and even then it often has to be individualised. An example of when it does not is having a molar removed at the dentist. Firstly you would take Arnica for bruising of the gums, secondly Hypericum for the pain as the anaesthetic wears off (will remove pain completely), thirdly Ledum for injection and fourthly Calendula (the remedy not the cream!) for fast healing of the gums (or any other injury). Symphytum is the great healer of broken bones.
Homeopaths believe that illnesses manifest for three reasons: firstly they are genetically inherited from our parents, grandparents, forefathers. Secondly, they can be caused by an traumatic event such as death of a loved one, divorce, job loss - any event that has a serious impact upon the person. Thirdly they can be caused from drugs taken by our parents (passed onto the foetus) or by ourselves. There is also of course accidents and injury.
Inherited disease can be traced back to one or more of what homeopaths call MIASMS - these are syphilis, gonorrhoea, psora (scabies), tuberculosis and cancer. We are all a mix of all of these as especially TB, dates back thousands of years. However one or more of the miasms is uppermost in a person and is an important aspect of the case-taking to determine the appropriate medicines.
So many people are in total ignorance of the VAST amount of study needed to become an expert in this field. Also there are hundreds of homeopathic books only available at specialist bookshops, many printed in India where homeopathy is more popular than orthodox medicine.
Attacks on Homeopathy
After the ever increasing attacks on alternative medicine in the media and in particular homeopathy, once again Professor Edzard Ernst, the 'first professor of complementary medicine' (whose qualifications for the job are still in question) discredits homeopathy. Yet in an interview with Geoff Watts in 2003
http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/04/01/careers/25.php
entitled 'A Scientist in the Alternative Camp', Professor Ernst stated:
"Our family doctor in the little village outside Munich where I grew up was a homoeopath. My mother swore by it. As a kid I was treated homoeopathically. So this kind of medicine just came naturally. Even during my studies I pursued other things like massage therapy and acupuncture."
"As a young doctor I had an appointment in a homoeopathic hospital, and I was very impressed with its success rate. My boss told me that much of this success came from discontinuing mainstream medication. This made a big impression on me."
The truth is that homeopathy is getting ever more popular and the drugs companies are putting out their spin in overdrive through their science and media PR operation outlets to counteract this in any way they can.
The reason there is this incessant assault in the press against homeopathy is because Pharma wields enormous power over the media and because the popularity of homeopathy has been increasing due to side effects of modern medicine. Also, unlike other natural therapies, it is pills and in direct competition.
At leat six million people use complementary treatments each year in the UK, which offers clinically-effective and cost-effective solutions to common health problems faced by NHS patients.
Historical Facts
In view of the highly inaccurate reporting and vitriolic attacks in the recent press coverage on homeopathy, I would like to point out some little known historical facts concerning homeopathy.
The practice of homeopathic medicine flourished in both Europe and the US during the 1800s and early 1900s and was spectacularly popular with European royalty and the British aristocracy, American entrepreneurs, literary giants, and religious leaders.
John D. Rockefeller referred to it as 'a progressive and aggressive step in medicine' and was under homeopathic care throughout the latter part of his life living to 99 years of age. A strong advocate of homeopathy, major grants of between $300-$400 million he intended for homeopathic institutions were instead used for orthodox medical institutions in the early 1900s, under pressure from his son and his financial advisor, Frederick Gates. (Source Dana Ullman)
In the United States in the early 1900s there were 22 homeopathic medical schools and over 100 homeopathic hospitals, 60 orphanages and old people's homes and 1,000+ homeopathic pharmacies. Members of the American Medical Association had great animosity towards homeopathy after its formation in 1847 and it was decided to purge all local medical societies of physicians who were homeopaths. This purge was successful in every state except Massachusetts because homoepathy was so strong among the elite of Boston.
The AMA wanted to keep homoepaths out of their societies and discourage any type of association with homeopaths. In 1855 the AMA established a code of ethics which stated that orthodox physicians would lose their membership if they even consulted with a homeopath. If a physician lost his membership, it meant that in some States he no longer had a licence to practice medicine.
Drug companies were antagonistic towards homeopathy, collectively trying to suppress it. The medical journals they published were used as mouthpieces against homeopathy and in support of orthodox medicine.
At an AMA meeting, a respected orthodox physician said: 'We must admit that we never fought the homeopath on matters of principles; we fought him because he came into the community and got the business.' Economic issues played a major role in what was allowed to be practised.
Homeopathy attracted support from many of the most respected members of society in the US, such as William James, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Louisa M. Alcott, Mark Twain, former American Presidents James Garfield and William McKinley. In Britain among its supporters were George Bernard Shaw, Charles Dickens, W.B. Yeats, William Thackarey, Benjamin Disraeli, Yehudi Menuhin. Other famous supporters were Dostoevsky, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Mahatma Ghandi.
Nowadays, celebrities using and supporting homeopathy are many and include among others : Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tina Turner, Whoopi Goldberg, Pamela Anderson, Jane Fonda, Cher, Rosie O'Donnell, Martin Sheen, the Chilli Peppers, Jane Seymour, Lesley Anne Warren, Mariel Hemingway, Lindsay Wagner, Paul McCartney, Axl Rose, Linda Gray, Susan Blakely, Michael Franks, Cybil Sheppard, Dizzy Gillespie, Vidal Sassoon, Angelica Houston, Boris Becker, Martina Navratilova, David Beckham, Priscilla and Lisa Marie Presley, Cliff Robertson, Jerry Hall, Diane von Furstenberg, Ashley Judd, Naomi Judd, Olivia Newton-John, Julianna Margulies, JD Salinger, Blythe Danner, Pat Riley (coach of the Miami Heat). The list of famous people who supported homeopathy is endless.....
See 'The Homeopathic Revolution' by Dana Ullman MPH www.homeopathicrevolution.com
The aristocratic patronage of homeopathy in the UK extending well into the 1940s and beyond can be easily demonstrated. In the Homeopathic Medical Directories there are lists of patrons of the dispensaries and hospitals. They read like an extract from Burke’s or Debrett’s.
(See A History of Homeopathy in Britain by Peter Morrell, Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Staffordshire University, UK.)
www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/articles/ukhomhistory.shtml
Homeopathy is practised nowadays in countries all over the world and is especially popular in France, South America and India where there are around 250,000 homeopathic doctors! In a recent Global TGI survey where people were asked whether they trust homeopathy the following percentages of people living in urban areas said Yes: 62% in India, 58% Brazil, 53% Saudi Arabia, Chile 49%, United Arab Emirates 49%, France 40%, South Africa 35%, Russia 28%, Germany 27%, Argentina 25%, Hungary 25%, USA 18%, UK 15%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
