Wincanton's focused community website for news, views and information including a full calendar
Headlines » Health & Fitness

Is There A Place For Homeopathy In the 21st Century Home?

Sunday 22 May 2011, 15:08
By Steve Stapleton

On Monday June 6th at 7.30pm, Tim MacCaw (MARH, M.L.C.Hom) will be giving a FREE TALK entitled

Homeopathy For The Family

...at The Vale Centre, Stoke Trister (full details below).

Homeopathy productsTim will be covering homeopathic remedies (and how to self-prescribe them), complete with case studies for:

  • SHOCK
  • BURNS
  • CUTS, LACERATIONS, SKIN INJURIES
  • PUNCTURE WOUNDS
  • BITES AND STINGS
  • SPRAINS AND STRAINS
  • TUMMY BUGS

Why should you come? Here's a bit of blurb about Tim and why you'll benefit from this talk:

Tim is a qualified Homeopath and he and his wife, Charlotte, also host courses, workshops and talks on a wide variety of subjects at The Vale Centre. Tim was previously a solicitor in London and with Gillette for over 30 years.

Homeopathic and natural remedies have worked so well for his own family, friends and clients and yet still remain a bit of a mystery to many of the public, whose doctors may be wedded to their pharmaceuticals, and reluctant to refer patients to complementary health practitioners on the NHS even if they request it.

So Tim invites you to come along and learn about, or have a refresher on, some of the homeopathic remedies that work brilliantly, and without side effects, in First Aid situations. Tried and tested by doctors in World War II, these remedies are for wounds, shock, stomach pains, burns, bruises, lacerations, and more.

Once you can treat these yourself on-the-spot, you may well cut recovery time down very significantly, perhaps by over 50%.

Tim will also be making available the Lakeland College's Healing with Homeopathy booklet at cost (£4) which covers much more than the evening session can in the time available, and is an easy guide on how to use the remedies, as well as covering First Aid Mental/Emotional and Physical Therapeutics.

So, if you've ever wondered why homeopathic medicine works on animals - despite mainstream medicine insisting it's the placebo effect - or would just like to learn how to use homeopathy to keep your family healthy, then this talk is for you.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Steve Stapleton
Wincanton Wholefoods
www.wincantonwholefoods.co.uk

P.S. Please RSVP so we can be sure to have the right sized venue so that you can get the most from this FREE TALK. E-mail either myself or Tim at the addresses below:


Homeopathy For The Family

A FREE TALK by Tim MacCaw on June 6th at 7.30 pm (until about 9.00pm)

Location: The Manor House Courtyard
Stoke Trister
Nr Wincanton
BA9 9PH
Telephone: 01963-33360

A map to Stoke TristerAnother map, zoomed in on Stoke Trister




Comments

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 32 | Next | Last
James Phillips
Posts: 4
Comment
Re: Is There A Place For Homeopathy In the 21st Century Home?
Reply #1 on : Sun May 22, 2011, 20:31:07
No, no, no, no. Please do not spend your precious money on homeopathy. It has no mainstream scientific evidence supporting it at all and it has never passed a legitimate double bind trial. The only true statement for it is that it has no side effects. Sorry to be a grinch, but things should not be sold as remedies without evidence being presented, and given that homeopathy violates the fundamental principles of chemistry, some very strong evidence would be needed for it.
Genghis
Posts: 1
Comment
Re: Is There A Place For Homeopathy In the 21st Century Home?
Reply #2 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 08:10:05
Why do people even accomodate the notion that homeopathy can be a good thing. It defies all the laws of physics and chemistry. What is the point in research for cancer and HIV etc when precious funds are being diverted to this nonsense. Please stop this ludicrous waste of public funds before people die.
Sleuth
Posts: 2
Comment
Homeopathy
Reply #3 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 10:46:04
Boy, you guys go for the jugulars. Poor Steve. He might need stitches after those comments. Apt name Genghis. Don't most, if not all medicines come from plants/plant extracts? Surely making a blanket statement that homeopathy is rubbish is not wholly true. I'm not a great fan myself, but surely some of their remedies do have actual benefits.

What about all the folks who say that they have benefited? Maybe some of you homeopathy believers can comment on this.
Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 10:47:33 by Sleuth  

Posts: 4
Comment
For and Against Homeopathy
Reply #4 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 11:29:22
In the interests of a more informed debate, take a look at the article I've linked to below, presenting both sides of the argument. Yes, I know it's from The Mail Online, AND it's four years old (please don't stone me) but it's one of the few sources I could find at short notice that presents both views in one place AND doesn't come direct from a homeopathic-biased web site.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-496612/The-case-homeopathy.html

Now this is just presenting two people's (educated) opinions and we don't get an awful lot of the science behind the opinions, so academics and Steve, please feel free to point us in the direction of some even better resources.
Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 11:36:31 by *  
davidsmith
Posts: 5
Comment
The Placebo Effect, and such
Reply #5 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 11:59:11
I don't want to sound biased, as I really don't know anything about homeopathy aside from what I've just read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy and the article Mandy has just provided, but if homeopathy really is "...no more effective than a placebo" I can't help wondering if the Placebo Effect has been known to wield more power under certain conditions than it has previously been given credit for.

For example, if you give 50% of a test population a placebo, often positive effects are seen because of potential psychological effects of the patients THINKING they've been treated.

So to take that concept one step further, it seems to me that homeopathy has a somewhat cult following comprising individuals who have found cause for genuine belief that the treatments will actually work. So under standard placebo conditions where perhaps the patients are aware that they might not have been given the real drug, in the case of homeopathy it seems more likely that the average patient could be found far deeper within the 'believer' camp, and thus produce a slightly more positively skewed 'placebo effect'.

I really have no intention of discrediting homeopathy, largely because I'm known to buy into a few equally outrageous concepts of a medical/biological nature. I'm also accutely aware how far short documented science can fall of actual truth, even when unprecedented quantities of test data seem to be available.
Wincanton Wholefoods
Posts: 2
Comment
Homeopathy, etc.,
Reply #6 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 12:54:54
What an interesting response to what is, after all, an invite to a talk about a specific subject. I wonder if a talk about statins would have elicited a similar response?

Thanks, Mandy, for the link to a pretty balanced article.

I, personally, am open-minded on the subject of homeopathy. I have customers who swear by it, but have no personal experience of it. I am, however, suprised at the antagonistic attitude of the mainstream medical profession. I can accept the need for trying to prove/disprove any theory, but scientific proof in this area tends to be retrospective.

After all, Louis Pastuer was ridiculed for his germ theories, Crick and Watson had a hard time getting support for their discovery of the DNA double helix and, more recently, Robert L. Folk's discovery of nannobacteria is creating controversy.

I think Einstein said it best...

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily, assume so great an authority over us that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labelled as "conceptual necessities", etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors."
— Albert Einstein

It seems to me that there are many things in our lives that are inexplicable yet still exist/happen. Maybe homeopathy is one of them.

In any case, those of an open-minded disposition are still welcome to attend on June 6th.
davidsmith
Posts: 1
Comment
Support of science
Reply #7 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 13:19:19
I agree, in general. And it WOULD be interesting to have a talk about statins, and I'm curious as to why you mention them specifically, Steve.

I've still not read a great deal more, but I'd be very interested to hear an intelligent, pro-homeopathic, scientific response to the general claim that homeopathy isn't based on anything substantial, scientifically provable, or tangible.

It seems the primay load-bearing column of homeopathy is the "Water Memory" idea. I use the word 'idea' rather than 'theory' because at no stage have I read that it's been documented as a rational theory. If the very basis for an idea is entirely irrational, or at least not substantial or vaguely scientific, AND there's nothing more than anecdotal evidence that there's anything more affirmative at work than the optimist's placebo effect, what exactly IS the basis?

This talk might be the ticket, if Tim can present something worthwhile, but as Mandy said - her article presents no scientific discussion on the matter.

Unless I've been maliciously mislead, which isn't impossible, my beliefs on other similar topics (inlcuding statins, as it happens) are at least based on scientific research, actual data and intelligent analysis, plus a good deal of documented history.
Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 13:19:50 by davidsmith  

Posts: 4
Comment
Eliciting A Response
Reply #8 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 13:20:57
Statins? Don't go there Steve. Or maybe you should...wear a hard hat though!
Wincanton Wholefoods
Posts: 2
Comment
More on homeophobia
Reply #9 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 15:49:32
I chose statins just because they're a hot potato at the moment and Mr Phillips mentioned the lack of side effects from homeopathy.
Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 15:50:42 by Wincanton Wholefoods  
Torquemade
Posts: 4
Comment
Homeopathy in the 21st Century
Reply #10 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 16:47:25
Speaking as someone who has extensive experience of treating battle wounded from the current wars I would be dismayed if any of my colleagues attempted to use these methods of quackery to treat my patients. Indeed, I would have them taken outside and shot.

And to use the examples of great scientific minds being thought of as ridiculous being in any way comparable to the lunacy of homeopathy is laughable. It is exactly the application of rigourous scientific method that these great minds used to postulate a theory and then provide compelling evidence as to its veracity. Exactly the same scientific method that has shown homeopathy to be no better that placebo and those who promote no better than snake oil salesmen.

The NHS does not have enough money to waste on such claptrap
Bobb
Posts: 1
Comment
Sleuth:
Reply #11 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 19:35:41
I'm not sure you understand what homeopathy is. you say:

'Don't most, if not all medicines come from plants/plant extracts?

Many do, but I fail to see what relevance that has to homeopathy, since homeopathic remedies, whatever they may be called, don't actually contain any plant extracts (or anything else - they are water).

'Surely making a blanket statement that homeopathy is rubbish is not wholly true. I'm not a great fan myself, but surely some of their remedies do have actual benefits'

Do they? Then why do homeopaths refuse to test their remedies in proper clinical trials?

Torquemade is absolutely right - it is nothing short of criminal that NHS funding is squandered on homeopathy when patients elsewhere are being denied treatment that has been proven to work.

And as for the suggestion in the original article that homeopathy can be used to treat 'shock' - I suspect the author hasn't got a clue what the term actually means, and the assertion is laughable to anyone who does.
James Phillips
Posts: 4
Comment
Re: Is There A Place For Homeopathy In the 21st Century Home?
Reply #12 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 20:01:09
Statins themselves are not a hot potato. It is the potential overuse of statins that some disagree with. That is fundamentally different to the objection to homeopathy, which is that homeopathy is complete rubbish.

The logical chain you are using to invoke statins as a controversial topic like the homeopathy one is the following:
Doctors give everyone in the country chemotherapy prophylactically, in the hope of preventing the odd case of cancer.
This causes lots of illness, suffering and expense without clear gain.
Therefore, chemotherapy itself is a bad thing.

Absurd reasoning I am sure you agree, but it is the one which you are using to suggest that the statin controversy is somehow analogous to the homeopathy situation.

As it happens, enormous amounts of evidence points to statins as a very useful cholesterol lowering medication. In addition to this, a clear method of action is known (namely inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase, the first unique biochemical step in cholesterol synthesis).

What does homeopathy have going for it? Anecdotes.
davidsmith
Posts: 5
Comment
Statins
Reply #13 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 20:27:10
I entirely agree - these cases are quite different in almost every way, except that they are all called into question - a fact which is, in and of itself, not the real topic of discussion.

With regard specifically to statins, as a topic controversy, it's fair, I think, to add that the nature of the controversy is actually quite the reverse, in that it's the minority who call them into question.

There is, indeed, overwhelming evidence showing that statins are the single greatest tool we have for lowering cholesterol, and it's true to say that it does so through a very specifically designed process with a scientifically understood, chemical basis.

However, the vague similarity between this case and that of homeopathy is that a growing group, a minority at present, granted, have noticed that the benefit derived from the use of statins is utterly overwhelmed by the cost [to the NHS]. The all but insignificant positive effect they have on heart disease is grounds on which to stop paying Fortune 500 drug companies for a drug which, having reduced serum cholesterol (considered one of the most serious risk factors for coronary events) by as much at 60%, the return measured in - for example - average days added to life or number of lives saved over a control group, is about as laughable AND effective as, perhaps, a good old homeopathic heart attack remedy.

So yes, statins by comparison are considered to be a solid medical tool for scientific reasons (bad science aside, if that's even fair), and the general concensus is that they are the best weapon in the fight against CHD. But unfortunately that doesn't stop drug companies bleeding the NHS dry for almost-ineffective pills on which even the young are encouraged to LIVE (the 'oversell' angle James raised is also a concern), all the while doing their level best to convince the punters that there aren't really any side-effects and if they've got a bad memory or muscle pain its because they're old, or otherwise unhealthy, and that they should probably eat better and exercise - something that would likely produce a significantly larger benefit than the pills themselves.

So, in general agreement with James, statins might be a luke-warm potato, for a tiny minority of well-read individuals, but that's about the only similarity between these cases.
Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 21:40:16 by davidsmith  
Iain Phillips
Posts: 3
Comment
Homeopathy vs statins
Reply #14 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 20:34:25
Statins have been proven without doubt to reduce mortality from cardiovascular disease. These have been in huge scientific studies. To suggest that homeopathy can treat cardiovascular disease in this way is laughable. The ridiculous scaremongering about statins is to be deplored.

"Shock" - means severe and potentially lethal cardiovascular collapse. It has a huge mortality when untreated by conventional intensive intervention. To suggest that a few drops of water on the tongue can reverse this process is absurd. I hope that nobody is misguided enough to believe this.
Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 20:35:53 by Iain Phillips  
davidsmith
Posts: 5
Comment
Cardiovascular Disease
Reply #15 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 21:38:50
Just a disclaimer, in case there is a misunderstanding: correct me if I'm wrong - I might well have missed something - but I don't believe anyone has suggested here that homeopathy might be used to treat cardiovascular disease, and I haven't even implied it in my previous comment(s) - at least not intentionally.
James Phillips
Posts: 4
Comment
Re: Is There A Place For Homeopathy In the 21st Century Home?
Reply #16 on : Tue May 24, 2011, 23:17:47
"Tim will be covering homeopathic remedies (and how to self-prescribe them), complete with case studies for:

SHOCK"
From the original article
Iain Phillips
Posts: 3
Comment
Statins
Reply #17 on : Wed May 25, 2011, 06:41:58
Statins do have side effects - like ALL effective medications. Serious side effects are rare. Yes they can cause muscle pains in some patients this stopped on ceasing the drug. Trying alternative statins is often successful due to different metabolic pathways.

"Bleeding the NHS dry" - simvastatin costs £1.32 per month.

I would rather we spent NHS money on statins than homeopathy

On a lighter note watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Posts: 4
Comment
A Suggestion
Reply #18 on : Wed May 25, 2011, 07:35:47
I've no wish to completely hijack Steve's original theme, which was, after all, about homeopathy, but from the direction that recent comments have taken I do feel an article or talk about statins could be in the pipeline - Dr Phillips, would you be interested in leading an informative discussion or writing an article about this at some point?

As a total lay-person with an interest in my own and my family's health, books such as The Great Cholesterol Con, by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, and The Cholesterol Myths, by Uffe Ravnskof, have really made me worry whether the many scientific studies into the associations between cholesterol and heart disease have been sufficiently analysed and interpreted. It could be an interesting and very informative subject to explore.

If Dr Phillips, or anyone else, is keen to host such an article or discussion, I'd be glad to hear from you - email mandy@wincantonwindow.co.uk.
davidsmith
Posts: 5
Comment
Iain Phillips on statins + that video
Reply #19 on : Wed May 25, 2011, 10:35:33
That video is very funny! Good link.

"...simvastatin costs £1.32 per month."

Ah, that surprises me. I was led to believe they commanded a significantly higher price, at least to punters.

I share Mandy's sentiment, though. We've done quite a bit of research into heart disease, cholesterol and statins and it would be of great interest to us to have someone on the other side to bounce intelligent banter off, in an effort to put the debate to bed. If we could turn it into an article(s) on the subject that'd be great, but perhaps you'd be open to some offline discussion of my research, with a suitably open mind, such that we might be able to remove the heat from the debate and see about drawing some kind of conclusion. I remain totally open minded about all of this, but it seems I've found legitimate information that is often laughed at for reasons I have yet to ascertain.

In the interests of returning to the original topic, homeopathy, I suggest that we drop statins altogether here and if Iain Phillips or anyone else with an interest in statins or heart disease would be open to some strictly civilised, purely educational sharing/debate on the topic, please make independent contact using the form on the contact page.

Coming back to topic: Steve - is it possible you could get Tim to chime in here, before the talk, to boost the other side of the debate? Do we know of any other homeopaths in/around Wincanton who might fight their corner?
Tim MacCaw
Posts: 3
Comment
Homeopathy
Reply #20 on : Wed May 25, 2011, 10:37:56
There are some useful rules of thumb when reading comments on any website. Number 1: skip and ignore any by those hiding under a pseudonym. Number 2: remember that even where the author is identifiable, they may be what the Americans call a “shill” i.e. a stooge for someone with a vested interest. Perhaps a conventional doctor, or the representative of a manufacturer of a profitable patented drug, seeking to fend off a perceived competitor, or a journalist seeking to create dissent so that he has material for this week’s column. Some of these seek intentionally to mislead the public, others are convinced that they know what science says on everything under the sun and like arguing on the internet. Those with vested interests call the latter “useful idiots” and encourage them, because they waste the time of the complementary/alternative therapy fraternity.

Call me Mr Cynic, but I have read on the internet in connection with homeopathy so many “there’s no evidence”, “it’s placebo”, “it’s anecdotal” (Doh, but that still means it happened to someone, stupid!), trotted out with evident self-satisfaction, that I can tell you that those who really are openminded and have gone to the trouble of spending a few minutes on the internet looking at some of the volumes of evidence there in favour of homeopathy, are in a very small minority. The doctors trade union, the BMA, and the Mr Placebos of this world on the other hand are simply not interested in reading the recommended homeopathic works by eminent doctors, being pointed to relevant URLs, or even spending two minutes wondering why then animals and infants respond as well, or even better, to homeopathy than adult humans. Meanwhile they ignore and would presumably prefer the public not to know that according to the British Medical Journal’s own chart just 11% of conventional drugs are judged wholly beneficial and 51% are of unknown effectiveness, or about the £8bn the NHS spends on drugs and the £2bn more spent on the problems caused by those drugs.

However, the presentation I am going to give on some homeopathic First Aid remedies is just that – a presentation on what has worked in some specific acute situations across the centuries for prescribing doctors, nurses and laymen alike. This is to remind us all that there are proven, cheap, natural remedies in many situations, which can be tried if you have the remedies in your cupboard. It is not an invitation to ignore seeing the doctor in appropriate cases. Nevertheless, that the homeopathic remedies work in these acute situations is a fact and has been diligently recorded for posterity – the greatest part of it by eminent doctors who qualified first by the conventional route. They remained open minded and boldly tried what their brethren were too timid or ignorant to try.

I am not going to debate during the First Aid talk the different theories as to why homeopathy works. There won’t be time for that. But for those who genuinely want to bone up on the latest, you could start at "The Case for Homeopathic Medicine: Consider the Historical and Scientific Evidence" which can be found at
http://www.naturalnews.com/029419_homeopathic_medicine_evidence.html#ixzz1KZNBSErz . And after that Amy L. Lansky, PhD http://articles.mercola.com/imageserver/public/2009/December/Amy1-1-03.jpg

www.impossiblecure.com . Then you could read the famous Dr Compton Burnett’s little booklet “50 Reasons for being a Homeopath”, written in 1888 to educate an upstart young doctor who was “as full of scholastic conceit as an egg is full of meat”.

Meanwhile, consider that there are in the UK over 400 doctors practising homeopathy, and many nurses and qualified lay homeopaths. An estimated 15% (9 million) of the UK population use it (worldwide over 500m). 70% of patients benefit from homeopathy, according to NHS studies[1], even though an entrenched profession usually uses it as a last resort. For those willing to put aside their chemistry set, see at http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf , as well as in Amy Lansky’s article, how physicists have also started to suggest how homeopathic medicines may work by altering the molecular structure of water. Even old Darwin observed in his work on Insectivorous Plants: "it is an astonishing fact... that so inconceivably minute a quantity as 1-20,000,000 of a grain' [a much smaller quantity than the 6th decimal dilution, the usually prescribed strength of the homeopathic Tissue Remedies] of ammonia phosphate should induce changes in a gland, sufficient to cause a motor impulse to be sent down the whole length of the tentacle, this impulse exciting movements through an angle of about 180 degrees".

In conclusion, there is plenty of empirical evidence of effectiveness for those of us who choose this totally safe, effective and economic form of therapy in preference to other treatments, some of which have horrendous side effects. We know there are those who will never be satisfied whatever the evidence presented to them. That is ultimately their problem, not ours. But if they seek arrogantly to interfere with the public's right of choice to homeopathic treatment under the NHS which was assured by Aneurin Bevan, the Labour Health Minister who set it up, then they should expect to be told to take a running jump.

[1] Spence D.S., Thompson E.A., Barron S.J., ‘Homeopathic Treatment for Chronic Disease: A
6-Year, University-Hospital Outpatient Observational Study’, Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 2005, 11:793-798.
Donal McDade, Evaluation [of a] Complementary and Alternative Medicines Pilot Project
(London: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, 2008).
Dr Adrian Hunnisett, Homeopathy Service Survey (Cirencester: The Park Surgery, 2005).
Lynn Ward
Posts: 1
Comment
Homeopathy
Reply #21 on : Wed May 25, 2011, 11:22:35
I think we should all have an open mind on this - having had experience of both the NHS homoepathic hospital in Bristol and private naturalist treatments for a close relative. Treatments certainly improved and helped a chronic condition for a while - but thereafter the condition worsened .... I certainly think any form of homeopathy should be taken on the guidance of a practitioner.
Iain Phillips
Posts: 3
Comment
evidence
Reply #22 on : Wed May 25, 2011, 11:48:09
Where is the statistically significant, placebo controlled, peer reviewed evidence in reputable journals?
James Phillips
Posts: 4
Comment
Re: Is There A Place For Homeopathy In the 21st Century Home?
Reply #23 on : Wed May 25, 2011, 13:48:23
Quite. I do wish Mr MacCaw would name even a single such piece of peer-reviewed journal evidence instead of giving a myriad of links and assertions about how effective it is.

Its simple, if homeopathy works, hold it up to the standards used to judge any theory - test it via experiment, in this case a double blind trial. This is what every real drug has to go through.

I wonder why the homeopathic organisations, which stand to benefit so enormously from such a project if it worked, don't do it?

Shame on you for offering a first aid course which proposes using water to cure ailments. I really hope no one is taken in by this, but I know people are, and will continue to be.

As for the insinuation that the anti-homeopathy lobby is full of drug company brainwashed 'useful idiots': I am a science student who spends considerable time studying pharmacology, and this includes performing experiments to test the knowledge I gain. You do not appear to have any scientific education, and judging by your claim to be able to treat shock (a medical emergency) with water, it is not at all safe for you to be claiming to be a healer. Its like trying to cure a heart attack with water, shock really is that serious. My view is that you probably didn't know what shock was, since its such a shocking claim to make. Have a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(circulatory)
Torquemade
Posts: 4
Comment
Evidence
Reply #24 on : Wed May 25, 2011, 16:52:19
http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000353.html

no evidence of benefit

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005648/frame.html

no evidence of benefit

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003803/frame.html

no evidence full stop

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004923/frame.html

No evidence for homoepathy having any benefit

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003399/frame.html

no evidence of benefit

A number of Cochrane reviews, the Gold standard for evaluating multiple presentations of evidence in an indpendent systematic way. All show no benefit for the use of homeopathic remedies.

Each individual has a right to choose whichever cult or fringe organisation they wish to join, but it is beholden on the holders of the public purse to ensure that public money is not squandered on ineffective remedies.

I have no idea what conditions or illnesses that you intend to recommend this rubbish for, but the suggestion that it might be used for anything serious, particularly shock in the true medical sense of the word, is criminally insane.

Unfortunately, as you hold no nationally recognised professional license to practise, nor are you a member of a serious professional organisation with published standards by which to judge you, it is impossible to have you struck off and kept away from the gullible of this world.
Sleuth
Posts: 2
Comment
Knowledge of homeopathy
Reply #25 on : Thu May 26, 2011, 09:55:30
Bob's right. I know diddly about Homeopathy. Hang I have trouble spelling it. So I shouldn't really discuss what I don't know. That said I came across the following link that infers that the NHS have trials underway checking out homeopathy remedies. At least the NHS seems to be doing something about it.

Posts: 4
Comment
Top Secret Link?
Reply #26 on : Thu May 26, 2011, 10:11:32
Crikey Sleuth, it's not just you that's in hiding - you're keeping your link undercover too? Lol, come on, share!
Torquemade
Posts: 4
Comment
Trials
Reply #27 on : Thu May 26, 2011, 11:05:10
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/clinical-trial.aspx

try here
Torquemade
Posts: 4
Comment
Evidence
Reply #28 on : Fri May 27, 2011, 09:55:33
Funny how the presentation of evidence, or should I say lack of it, sends the homeopathists running for cover.

Like garlic with vampires....
Tim MacCaw
Posts: 3
Comment
Homeopathy
Reply #29 on : Fri May 27, 2011, 21:58:18
[With advance apologies for the length of this comment which is necessitated by the need to encourage the Phillipses to not make untrue assertions and to learn to integrate their approach to medical healthcare with those of other historically effective therapies]

Re Phillips Junior’s remarks about Shock, he will have to learn to speak the language of the layman as homeopaths do and not hijack the definition for a specific medical (circulatory) emergency. Mental/emotional and/or physical shock to the mind or parts of the body is well understood by most patients, and, Yes, it has been effectively treated by homeopathic doctors and laymen/women since long before he was born and giving us the benefit of his years of learning.

The sneer about water treatment: just reveals that he hasn’t read the information in the links supplied with my first comment (and there are more, informative links below in Dr Milgrom’s papers)

Show us the RCTs? Ah yes, the next default question out of the British Medical Association’s Handbook on handling homeopaths and how to sow misinformation and create confusion! Well I suppose for a few seconds it may do that, while diverting attention from a little admission which Dr Phillips volunteered, “Statins do have side effects - like ALL effective medications”. What a great heading for some separate information sharing one day in the Wincanton Window – “ALL effective (conventional) medications have side effects”. Doubtless part of the reason that over 400 UK doctors have added homeopathy to their expertise.


But, to address their RCT question, perhaps the Phillipses haven’t googled long enough to come across the site http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org?
They will find all their questions there, and enough answers to set them on the path to enlightenment under FREQUENT FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT HOMEOPATHY… AND THE TRUTH.
Thereafter it is up to them. An open mind is required, an acceptance that science, as they think they may know it, is not static, and an ability to interrogate the internet (and not just for the answers that will fit the conventional medical paradigm they are clinging to as an alcoholic clings to his bottle).

Here it is on RCTs.
“The RCT is the most popular method used by pharmaceutical companies to bring a new drug to the marketplace. However, it is not the best scientific method for researching whole-systems modalities such as homeopathy. A whole-systems approach recognizes that the human body and mind are dynamic and complex, with each part influencing the other and acting together. Therefore, one part or system of the body cannot be studied in isolation without looking at the effect on the whole person. Scientists find the RCT methodology is too restrictive when studying a whole-system methodology, and advocate other more appropriate research paradigms.
Many scientists and health practitioners question the usefulness of RCT studies even in standard drug testing. They prefer “real world” or “clinical outcome” studies that are more applicable to day-to-day practice instead of strictly-controlled drug trials. Health practitioners and the US Department of Health and Human Services are calling for “comparative effectiveness” research. These are studies that compare the usefulness of various treatments and provide more practical information about their use for patients and practitioners. “Clinical outcome,” “comparative effectiveness” and “systems-based” studies are types of research that are better suited for investigating the healing ability of the body and the effect of homeopathic treatment.
Having said all that, homeopathy has been shown to be effective in plenty of RCTs.”

If the Phillips family (representing all of Wincanton’s doctors?) still want to look at some RCTs, they should start at http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/ [Between 1950 and 2009, 142 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy have been reported. This represents research in 74 different medical conditions. Of these 142 trials, 63 were positive, 11 negative and 68 non-conclusive. A number of systematic reviews have evaluated the homeopathic research literature. Non-randomised, non-controlled clinical outcomes studies make a useful contribution to the evidence base].

Continuing now with the criticism of RCTs : “The assumption is often incorrectly made that the double blind RCT (DBRCT) is the best research tool with which to establish the evidence base of any therapy. However, deconstructing the DBRCT’s rationale reveals that it imposes in any therapeutic procedure an implicit and simplistic division of therapy from context. This turns out to be nothing more than an arithmetic convenience that allows the measurements made, statistics gathered, and inferences drawn from a trial ultimately to have significance within a deterministic framework. It has been demonstrated and explained (by analogy with quantum theory’s notion of wave-function collapse during observation) that this separation can seriously interfere with homeopathy/complementary medicine’s therapeutic effects.

What tends to be forgotten by those who promote an overzealous adherence to DBRCT as the “gold standard” for testing any therapy’s efficacy is that no therapeutic modality, conventional medicine included, is ever practised in real life according to the DBRCT’s procedural separation of therapy and context. As a result, the “evidence-based” (a misnomer) movement’s hold on the health sciences is now being challenged (even from within conventional medicine), for its exclusion of alternative therapy discourses.”

For the last two paragraphs I am indebted to Dr Lionel Milgrom, who has over 30 years experience in chemistry (BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC). In his evidence to the (biased) HoC Science and Technology Committee at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45we05.htm he quotes Sir Michael Rawlins (Chair of NICE and no supporter of homeopathy/CAM) who in his Harveian Oration 2009, [15] warned:
"RCTs, long regarded as the 'gold standard' of evidence, have been put on an undeserved pedestal. Their appearance at the top of hierarchies of evidence is inappropriate; and hierarchies are illusory tools for assessing evidence. They should be replaced by a diversity of approaches that involve analysing the totality of the evidence base."


The many other points covered in Dr Milgrom’s full paper should give the Phillipses cause for reflection. And, as an aside, lest either gets left behind by current scientific progress on the unique properties of succussed water, they would benefit by reading Dr Milgrom’s other paper: Homeopathy and the New Fundamentalism, and the sources to which he refers in it, which can be downloaded at http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum/topics/homeopathy-and-the-new


This RCT section wouldn’t be complete – from my point of view - without pointing the Phillipses to an outcomes study conducted in 2005 in Germany entitled:
Outcome and costs of homoeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: a comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders by De Witt et al.

It can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16036164 and other sites. Its team included members of the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, 10098 Berlin, Germany, and the Institute for Statistics and Econometrics, Economics, University of Hamburg.

The study using 493 patients, children and adults, evaluated the effectiveness, and cost, of homeopathy versus conventional medical treatment in routine care of selected chronic disorders.

If conventional medical treatment had “won” in this study, despite the caveats the team highlights regarding its design, I suspect this triumph would be being trumpeted from the rooftops by conventional medicine’s bigwigs. But the result was the other way round! Patients seeking homeopathic treatment had a (statistically significant) better outcome overall compared with patients on conventional treatment (for the chronic disorders selected).

It is a testimony, I believe, to the relative humility of most homeopaths compared to the strident aggressiveness of many conventional doctors, and their camp followers, who persist in trying to stamp out homeopathy and other complementary therapies with the goal of a complete monopoly over UK healthcare, that, with study results like this, we simply carry on in consultations and First Aid courses helping the public to learn how to treat and heal themselves effectively, safely, and cheaply with no side effects, without banging our own drum unduly. If we do get strident occasionally, it is purely as a reaction to the ludicrous statements coming from the conventional medicine camp, and their (not very) hidden agenda.
johnbaxter
Posts: 1
Comment
Pseudonyms
Reply #30 on : Fri May 27, 2011, 22:02:09
Who would have guessed that this topic would have stimulated such interest. Great. I do agree with Tim MacCaw on one point. Indulging in pseudonyms is pretty pseud. Surely except in very rare instances it just spams up the site. The only justification for using a pseudonym I can see, and it is an important one, is if someone wants to draw attention to some serious local issue, but have reason to fear they may be persecuted in some way if their identity is known as a result. I cannot see how that applies in a discussion over a health issue like this, or frankly, in others when the pseuds are out in force spamming up the site. So please, be brave, stick out your chest and say who you are.

Oh, and something else I find unimpressive is when "mature readers" feel free to speak disparagingly of "the younger X" rather than using the name of the person they disagree with - someone who has certainly not hidden behind a pseud. Do that and you destroy your own credibility.As I see it we want to encourage people of all ages and levels of knowledge and experience to comment. Well and strongly expressed argument should not descend into unpleasant or condescending personal criticism on this site.
Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 06:53:33 by johnbaxter  
Showing comments 1 to 30 of 32 | Next | Last

Login to comment!

© 2009 Wincanton Window    -    Site designed, hosted and maintained by Link-2