Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.

In article , john wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

The claims are false because homeopathy does not work. Basically, all it
does it give the body more time to heal. Before medicine could do
anything, back in the 1800s and before, this was really a good thing,
because the old treatments, like blood-letting did more harm than good.
So, in the old days, homeopathy was actually a good thing.

In Philadelphia, there was a medical school named after Hahnemann, called
Hahnemann Medical College. Guess what they type of medicine they taught?
Homeopathy. In the 1950s or so, they switched to teaching allopathy. Why?
Allopathy works and homeopathy doesn't.

The medical school is now part of Drexel University in Philadelphia.

********, as usual, that wasn't because it was more effective, that was
purely due to medical politics--you can read about it in:
Divided Legacy: The Conflict Between Homeopathy and the American Medical
Association by Harris L. Coulter

Ah yes: Harris "vaccines cause juvenile delinquency" Coulter. A more
reliable source is hard to imagine.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

David Wright wrote:
In article ,
Happy Dog wrote:
wrote in message

snip sermon

Homeopathy is a religion. To date, nobody has been able to support claims
that homeopathic remedies have obvious effects, of any kind, with a simple
controlled demonstration. Why is that?

exhale

Well, there have been controlled trials that appeared to show some
effect from homeopathic medications, but you'd expect that in one
case out of 20 just from random chance. Replication, now, that'd be
far more impressive.

Have a look at this article, david. But I have a feeling is that
you won't have the patience to read it all but instead pick here and
there and then think you know enough to make an informed rebuttal.

----------------------------- Article Follows
---------------------------------
The battle between big pharmaceuticals and Homoeopathy
by Clive Stuart

This article was originally printed in Investigate magazine

In August 2005 the medical journal "The Lancet" published a
study suggesting that any positive effects from Homeopathic treatment
were due to a placebo response, in other words a person gets better
because they believe in the medication or the practitioner or both. The
study was a meta-analysis. This type of study is a comparison of many
clinical trials carried out in the past. An editorial in the same
journal titled "The end of Homeopathy" advised Doctors to be "bold and
honest" with their patients about Homeopathy's lack of benefit. Strong
stuff indeed, especially as the last major meta-analysis of Homeopathy
published in the same journal in 1997 concluded that the positive
effects of Homeopathy were not down to the placebo effect. Why then the
mad rush to declare the end of a system of medicine that has shown it's
efficacy in many high quality studies?

Homeopathy has been around for a couple of hundred years.
Widely used in America and Europe in the 1800's, it has enjoyed a
spectacular resurgence in the last twenty to thirty years. In the UK
where it is recognised by Act of Parliament there are a total of four
Homeopathic hospitals. In India it is practised almost as widely as
conventional medicine. Studies have shown it to work equally well for
animals with many veterinarian surgeons using it for their patients.

One of the reasons for it's popularity is that it is a very safe
form of treatment. This is due to the fact that the remedies used are
highly dilute and thus free of any toxic side effects. It has been
postulated that Homeopathic remedies stimulate the body's homeostatic
or self-balancing mechanism. The choice of Homeopathic remedy is based
on a totality of the patients symptoms including mental and physical
symptoms. The philosophy is very different to the reductionist approach
of modern medicine where disease is generally reduced to one
dysfunctional organ or system.

Little research has been carried out to explain just how
homeopathy works but it's efficacy is well documented. This is borne
out by many high quality studies published in peer reviewed medical
journals showing the positive effects of Homeopathy above and beyond
those of placebo. Just one month before the negative Lancet paper was
published a study appeared in the "European Journal of Paediatrics"
giving scientific evidence that Homeopathy was effective in the
treatment of ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Should
Doctors not be "bold and honest" with their patients about this fact ?
As Homeopaths we see our patients with ADHD respond well to Homeopathic
treatment but our anecdotal evidence means nothing to conventional
practitioners without scientific fact to back it up. That scientific
fact is now available in this latest study. Doctors therefore owe it to
their patients to acquaint themselves with the ADHD research and
recommend Homeopathy as a safe and effective alternative to amphetamine
based drugs such as Ritalin. One month before the ADHD research a
German comparative cohort study of 493 people was published in
"Complementary Therapies in Medicine". The aims of this study were to
evaluate the effectiveness of Homeopathy versus conventional treatment
in routine care. The study concluded that patients on Homeopathic
treatment had a better outcome overall compared with patients on
conventional treatment. With this in mind why then did the editor of
the Lancet Dr. Richard Horton lock on to one negative study among many
positive ones to launch a highly vehement attack on Homeopathy? Surely
a balanced statement calling for more research into Homeopathy would
have been more in keeping with good science.

Horton is well known for his opposition to Homeopathy as is one
of the principal authors of the paper Prof. Matthias Egger. Egger
stated at the outset that he did not expect to find any difference
between Homeopathy and placebo. It now appears that he found what he
wanted to find. As scientists from around the world dissected the study
more disturbing facts came to light. Only 8 out of the 110 studies on
Homeopathy were used. The authors admitted that many of the 110 studies
showed positive results for Homeopathy, yet these studies were thrown
out after the authors had decided they were "lower quality". Respected
scientists subsequently branded the paper "junk science" saying it was
deeply flawed and biased but by now Horton and Eggers hatchet job on
Homeopathy was beginning to bear fruit. News media around the world
were awash with "Homeopathy no better than dummy pills", all the while
fuelled by journalists of a sceptical bent who were keen to offer
misplaced reverence to the Lancet study. Unfortunately the rebuttals
and rebukes of the study by those in the scientific community never got
the same publicity as the Lancet soundbites. These critiques included
letters to the Lancet itself that were rejected for publication.
Medical doctors who had objections to the methodology used in the study
asked for the identification of the eight trials used in the final
analysis but the authors explicitly refused. Added to this was the fact
that the journal had recently refused to publish a large UK study which
showed high levels of effectiveness for Homeopathy andyou have all the
transparency of a brick.

One has to wonder if there was some agenda behind all of this.
Could pharmaceutical companies have had some influence ? It would
hardly be a surprise as these companies are losing huge chunks of
market share to Homeopathy and Complementary medicine in general. Then
again it could just be actions borne out of sheer frustration at the
success of Homeopathy, frustration that will no doubt be enhanced by
the recent 6 year study from the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital in the
UK. This was the study that the Lancet would not publish. 6,500
patients took part in the study which was published in the peer
reviewed JACM (Journal of Alternative and Complementary medicine). 70%
of patients with chronic diseases such as arthritis, asthma, chronic
fatigue syndrome and severe eczema reported that Homeopathy had a
positive effect on their symptoms. This figure rose to 89% for young
asthma patients who experienced an improvement in their symptoms.
Overall 75% of patients reported feeling "better" or "much better".
Although this was an observational study and not a double blind trial
it is of great importance in showing the effectiveness of Homeopathy.
It can also be said that conventional medicine would be greatly pleased
with outcomes similar to these.

Sceptics have always used the argument that Homeopathy can
only work by placebo because the remedies are too dilute to have any
physical effect. If there was any credence to that argument then the
patients in the Bristol study must have been on "extra strength"
placebo because of the sheer volume of positive results. Certainly
ultra-dilutions have been a major stumbling block for Homeopathy being
accepted by conventional scientists despite there being research
suggesting the contrary. One such scientist was Prof. Madeline Ennis, a
pharmacologist at Queen's University Belfast and an avowed sceptic of
Homeopathy. She published a paper that was based on a high quality and
groundbreaking study that tested ultra-dilute solutions of histamine
and it's effects on certain types of white blood cells called
basophils. When the histamine was diluted to homeopathic levels and
past the point where any molecules of histamine could remain, the
ultra-dilutions still had an effect on the basophils. The results were
replicated in 3 other laboratories across Europe and published in the
respected "Inflammation Research"(vol 53, p181). Ennis would have to
concede that she had failed to disprove Homeopathy. She said in her
paper "We are unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to
encourage others to investigate this phenomenon".

Ennis is to be commended for her integrity in publishing
findings that were difficult for both her and science to accept and
explain. Others in the same field could learn from her example and
remove themselves from the comfort zone of accepted scientific fact to
embrace new possibilities.

As stated previously the bulk of clinical research shows the
placebo argument to be an erroneous one. To the research can be added
the fact that Homeopathy has been shown to be effective for babies and
animals. Here the chances for "power of suggestion" would seem remote.
For animals to be susceptible to the placebo effect, their vets would
need to develop the same powers of communication as Doctor Doolittle.
As Homeopaths we see many patients who have come to us after not having
had improvement from other medical treatments. If these people were
susceptible to the placebo effect, why then did it not happen with the
other treatments ? I have been a Registered Homeopath in full time
practice for 10 years in the UK and New Zealand. Nearly all of my work
comes from referrals. This is because people recommend what has worked
for them personally. If the opposite were true, Homeopathy would have
died a death a long time ago.
The public needs to be made aware when bias and selective research are
fed to them under the guise of medical science. Homeopathy does not
fear scientific scrutiny and evaluation as long as it is carried out
ona level playing field with truth and integrity. I have much respect
for modern medicine but it is by no means the only way to restore the
sick to health. We all need to work together for the good of the
patient. Doctors, Osteopaths, Homeopaths, Acupuncturists etc. all have
their place and need to work with each other as parts of a cohesive
whole. Divisiveness and one-upmanship have no place in healthcare.


Clive Stuart is a Registered Homoeopath in Tauranga, New Zealand

"NotImportant" wrote in message news:
David Wright wrote:
In article ,
Happy Dog wrote:
wrote in message

snip sermon

Homeopathy is a religion. To date, nobody has been able to support
claims
that homeopathic remedies have obvious effects, of any kind, with a
simple
controlled demonstration. Why is that?

exhale

Well, there have been controlled trials that appeared to show some
effect from homeopathic medications, but you'd expect that in one
case out of 20 just from random chance. Replication, now, that'd be
far more impressive.

Have a look at this article, david. But I have a feeling is that
you won't have the patience to read it all but instead pick here and
there and then think you know enough to make an informed rebuttal.

----------------------------- Article Follows
---------------------------------
The battle between big pharmaceuticals and Homoeopathy
by Clive Stuart

A usual, a homeopathy promoter tries to switch the battle to one between an
oppreeive regime and its victim. But, still, nobody has EVER been able to
demonstrate that there is a means to differentiate between a highly diluted
homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. (IE. water, lactose, etc.)
The fact that homeopaths refuse to deal with this does little for their
credibility.

moo

NotImportant wrote:
David Wright wrote:

In article ,
Happy Dog wrote:

wrote in message

snip sermon

Homeopathy is a religion. To date, nobody has been able to support claims
that homeopathic remedies have obvious effects, of any kind, with a simple
controlled demonstration. Why is that?

exhale

Well, there have been controlled trials that appeared to show some
effect from homeopathic medications, but you'd expect that in one
case out of 20 just from random chance. Replication, now, that'd be
far more impressive.


Have a look at this article, david. But I have a feeling is that
you won't have the patience to read it all but instead pick here and
there and then think you know enough to make an informed rebuttal.

----------------------------- Article Follows
---------------------------------
The battle between big pharmaceuticals and Homoeopathy
by Clive Stuart

This article was originally printed in Investigate magazine

In August 2005 the medical journal "The Lancet" published a
study suggesting that any positive effects from Homeopathic treatment
were due to a placebo response, in other words a person gets better
because they believe in the medication or the practitioner or both. The
study was a meta-analysis. This type of study is a comparison of many
clinical trials carried out in the past. An editorial in the same
journal titled "The end of Homeopathy" advised Doctors to be "bold and
honest" with their patients about Homeopathy's lack of benefit. Strong
stuff indeed, especially as the last major meta-analysis of Homeopathy
published in the same journal in 1997 concluded that the positive
effects of Homeopathy were not down to the placebo effect. Why then the
mad rush to declare the end of a system of medicine that has shown it's
efficacy in many high quality studies?

No it hasn't shown efficacy in any high end study. Why are homeopaths
such liars? Let me illustrate why I call homeopaths liars with just one
tiny example:
About a year ago in Brussels, Belgium, the homeopaths had a big
international convention. They had a press release that said the
scientific evidence that was going to be shown at the conference was
going to settle the question about the efficacy of homeopathy once and
for all. There would be no doubt about homeopathy any longer, or so they
claimed.
Right after that convention, the Belgian government came up with a
proposal for new legislation designed to better protect the title of MD.
A few points we MD's had to have an office with adequate equipment,
see x nr. of patients each year, take so many hours of training per
year, had to treat patients regardless of age, sex, religion, sexual
orientation etc., had to work night and weekend shifts, had to keep an
adequate medical record of each patient AND would only be allowed to
offer scientifically proven treatment. The MD's in Belgium who also
practiced homeopathy were in an uproar. Why? It couldn't be the
'scientifically proven' part, right? They just had a major conference
officially claiming the efficacy of homeopathy was scientifically proven
beyond all doubt. Perhaps they didn't want to treat Hindu’s or
Scientologists? Didn't want to the paperwork? Didn't want to work
weekends? I really don't think those were the reasons. I'm very sure
they knew they didn't have a shred of scientific evidence that
homeopathy works, which means they were lying their asses of at their
convention.

I snipped the rest of the piece, since it's mostly about how homeopathy
is supposed to work. The homeopath who wrote has, as usual, skipped the
first necessary step - to show that homeopathy works. All he does is
make claims with zero evidence. Which is typical. And I think he knows
he has zero evidence, just as the homeopaths in Belgium know this.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
m...


A usual, a homeopathy promoter tries to switch the battle to one between
an oppreeive regime and its victim. But, still, nobody has EVER been able
to demonstrate that there is a means to differentiate between a highly
diluted homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. (IE. water, lactose,
etc.) The fact that homeopaths refuse to deal with this does little for
their credibility.

moo


it sure distracts from the uselessness of allopathy
http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html

"The American Medical Association is fashioned to prescribe drugs and
perform various treatments that although they may be unsuspecting, tend to
weed out the weaker species. The Council views the AMA's 'modern medicine'
as barbaric. "-Brice Taylor (Thanks For The Memories p 283)

"john" wrote:


"Happy Dog" wrote in message
om...


A usual, a homeopathy promoter tries to switch the battle to one between
an oppreeive regime and its victim. But, still, nobody has EVER been able
to demonstrate that there is a means to differentiate between a highly
diluted homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. (IE. water, lactose,
etc.) The fact that homeopaths refuse to deal with this does little for
their credibility.

moo


it sure distracts from the uselessness of allopathy
http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html

"The American Medical Association is fashioned to prescribe drugs and
perform various treatments that although they may be unsuspecting, tend to
weed out the weaker species. The Council views the AMA's 'modern medicine'
as barbaric. "-Brice Taylor (Thanks For The Memories p 283)


I have to admit admiration for someone who can make up a conspiracy
theory this good.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Happy Dog wrote:
"NotImportant" wrote in message news:
David Wright wrote:
In article ,
Happy Dog wrote:
wrote in message

snip sermon

Homeopathy is a religion. To date, nobody has been able to support
claims
that homeopathic remedies have obvious effects, of any kind, with a
simple
controlled demonstration. Why is that?

exhale

Well, there have been controlled trials that appeared to show some
effect from homeopathic medications, but you'd expect that in one
case out of 20 just from random chance. Replication, now, that'd be
far more impressive.

Have a look at this article, david. But I have a feeling is that
you won't have the patience to read it all but instead pick here and
there and then think you know enough to make an informed rebuttal.

----------------------------- Article Follows
---------------------------------
The battle between big pharmaceuticals and Homoeopathy
by Clive Stuart

A usual, a homeopathy promoter tries to switch the battle to one between an
oppreeive regime and its victim.

As usual, we have an uninformed, syncopathic , parrot-like
response. Instead of throwing out rhetorics, challenge the evidences
presented. If not that then either you are an ignomarus fool or a
syncopathic parrot.

If you can't engage fruitfully on the substance of the debate at
least don't muddy up the water. No one will think you a fool if you
don't prove yourself one 8-)

But, still, nobody has EVER been able to
demonstrate that there is a means to differentiate between a highly diluted
homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. (IE. water, lactose, etc.)
The fact that homeopaths refuse to deal with this does little for their
credibility.

I gave a double-blind study to you and david wright in the other
thread and yet you would come back here and say...no,no,no,...there's
nothing in the water. Either you did not take the trouble to read the
research or you have read it and didn't understand what the (bleep)
they were talking about. Parroting the same line again and again is a
poor reflection on you......Ok, here's another article for you to
read....please do read it and then we can come back and discuss the
merit or demerit of the article.

http://www.homoeopathichouse.com/paulc.htm

This is a very good article. Peter Moran had said in another thread
that this things doesn't work in nature was wrong. How homoeopathic
works in fact work very closely with the law of nature.

On another note to show the dishonesty, the fabrication, the
politics of big business and the people charge with upholding the
principles of an institution that we are supposed to respect, honour
and believe. The issue is on the contraceptive pill. The initial
research, the studies, the approval, the fatality etc. To worship
science as the arbiter of truth would be putting it on the altar of our
own stupidity.

Here's the link : http://www.homoeopathichouse.com/pill.htm

"NotImportant" wrote in message
ups.com...

"Syncopathic" is not in my dictionary. Please define it.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

JohnDoe wrote:
NotImportant wrote:
David Wright wrote:

In article ,
Happy Dog wrote:

wrote in message

snip sermon


I find it interesting and perhaps even instructive that your
posting profile seem to indicate a singular obsession. I'm just
wondering why that is so.

journal titled "The end of Homeopathy" advised Doctors to be "bold and
honest" with their patients about Homeopathy's lack of benefit. Strong
stuff indeed, especially as the last major meta-analysis of Homeopathy
published in the same journal in 1997 concluded that the positive
effects of Homeopathy were not down to the placebo effect. Why then the
mad rush to declare the end of a system of medicine that has shown it's
efficacy in many high quality studies?

No it hasn't shown efficacy in any high end study. Why are homeopaths
such liars? Let me illustrate why I call homeopaths liars with just one
tiny example:

Why not look at the substance of the article and see if you could
shed some divine light on to it for us all to see whether they were
lying or that you were deceived. What's the difference ? One is that
the homeopaths knew that it was false and yet offer it as a
treatment.The second is that you are so wrapped up in your little world
that you could not evaluate things that go pass your mindstream
objectively and honestly. Essentially you are being pushed around like
the tail wagging the dog.


story snipped

I would have called you a liar if not for the fact that I don't know
you personally. If I call you a liar without knowing you then I am an
idiot for it would deny us a chance of really getting to know each
other.

So the best I can say is that your statement is inconsistent and
does not stand up to scrutiny for the simple reason that homoeopaths
don't put MD behind their title unless there are MD. Is this an
attempt at obfuscation ? Painting pictures in people's mind and then
twisting the picture ? I'm very curious as to you singular
obsession....care to explain ? I know it is none of my business 8-))).

I was reading the history of homoeopaths only yesterday and I find
it fascinating that almost all homoeopaths in the early years were
actually allopaths who were disappointed with the methods they used and
found homeopaths to be very efficacious. Some of them even quietly gave
homoeopathic remedy for fear of being ridiculed. The EBook called
"Homoepathy Explained" is by John Henry Clark, MD. Oh yes he was an
allopath but decided to switch course mid-stream after he saw how
gentle, safe and effective homoeopathic remedy was.

NotImportant wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:

NotImportant wrote:

David Wright wrote:


In article ,
Happy Dog wrote:


wrote in message

snip sermon


I find it interesting and perhaps even instructive that your
posting profile seem to indicate a singular obsession. I'm just
wondering why that is so.


journal titled "The end of Homeopathy" advised Doctors to be "bold and
honest" with their patients about Homeopathy's lack of benefit. Strong
stuff indeed, especially as the last major meta-analysis of Homeopathy
published in the same journal in 1997 concluded that the positive
effects of Homeopathy were not down to the placebo effect. Why then the
mad rush to declare the end of a system of medicine that has shown it's
efficacy in many high quality studies?

No it hasn't shown efficacy in any high end study. Why are homeopaths
such liars? Let me illustrate why I call homeopaths liars with just one
tiny example:


Why not look at the substance of the article and see if you could
shed some divine light on to it for us all to see whether they were
lying or that you were deceived. What's the difference ? One is that
the homeopaths knew that it was false and yet offer it as a
treatment.The second is that you are so wrapped up in your little world
that you could not evaluate things that go pass your mindstream
objectively and honestly. Essentially you are being pushed around like
the tail wagging the dog.


story snipped

I would have called you a liar if not for the fact that I don't know
you personally. If I call you a liar without knowing you then I am an
idiot for it would deny us a chance of really getting to know each
other.

So the best I can say is that your statement is inconsistent and
does not stand up to scrutiny for the simple reason that homoeopaths
don't put MD behind their title unless there are MD. Is this an
attempt at obfuscation ? Painting pictures in people's mind and then
twisting the picture ? I'm very curious as to you singular
obsession....care to explain ? I know it is none of my business 8-))).

I was reading the history of homoeopaths only yesterday and I find
it fascinating that almost all homoeopaths in the early years were
actually allopaths who were disappointed with the methods they used and
found homeopaths to be very efficacious. Some of them even quietly gave
homoeopathic remedy for fear of being ridiculed. The EBook called
"Homoepathy Explained" is by John Henry Clark, MD. Oh yes he was an
allopath but decided to switch course mid-stream after he saw how
gentle, safe and effective homoeopathic remedy was.

So you have discovered that even people intelligent enough to become
MD's can be fooled. Hate to tell you this, but that isn't news. MD's
even fall for the Nigerian scam, so why not for homeopathy.