If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
"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) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
"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/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homeopathy vs allopathy. | [email protected] | Kids Health | 8 | August 11th 06 06:49 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Allergies and Asthma (part 2/4) | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 2 | December 19th 05 05:36 AM |
Homeopathic treatment effective in ADHD | john | Kids Health | 10 | September 23rd 05 05:55 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Allergies and Asthma (part 3/4) | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 1 | August 29th 04 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Allergies and Asthma (part 3/4) | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 1 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |