“For all the skeptics out there have a look at the figures for the cholera epidemic in London in the mid 1800s when hundreds and hundreds of people died in the conventional hospitals compared to the homeopathic hospital where the death rate was next to none. What more proof do you need”

I’d need a lot more proof, and not just because I’m a “skeptic” of homeopathy, but because you have ignored lots of factors we know to be important. These factors make this comparison far from as straightforward as you’d suggest.

Nobody at the time knew that the best treatment for cholera was simple prompt rehydration which is close to being 100% effective unless the patient is compromised for other medical reasons. The death rate in the Royal Homeopathic hospital you mention was better than other hospitals but was still just over 16%. That’s around 16% worse than simply removing the patient from the infected water supply and giving them a saline drip or osmotically-balanced drinking water.

“Conventional” treatment of the of the time was made up of ill-advised non-therapies such as blood letting and use of emetics, both causing further dehydration. Without an understanding of the disease “conventional” therapies of the time were worse than a non-intervention. This is despite the fact that the rehydration idea was first proposed during earlier cholera outbreaks in the 1830’s.

The Royal Homeopathic hospital avoided these dehydrating therapies and gave patients nothing but water (!). The hospital also catered for richer patients only and had less crowded, cleaner wards. The conventional hospitals had lower nurse to patient numbers and far higher rates of aquired secondary infections.

What this example demonstrates is not that homeopathy worked, just that cleaner hospitals and the prevention of additional dehydration are both better than the opposite.

However, as we now stand the option of homeopathy vs a saline drip is actually a non-option. Saline drip every time.

Steve Scrutton - “Conventional drugs are something to avoid at all costs.”
Potty Pat- “Both parties take an oath to ‘do no harm’”

Seems like I should be avoiding taking my medication for diabetes then? Must be OK as homeopaths have taken an oath to do no harm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7390600.stm

A recent child death in UK from diptheria, child not immunised.

A child death from diptheria, child not immunised. There isn’t any information about the reasons why not, but one can’t help wondering if scaremongering such as that by Mr Scrutton might have played a part.

Bearing in mind your appeal above, what is your opinion of Steve Scrutton’s comments?

Both parties take an oath to ‘do no harm’
Both parties should work together for the sake of the patient.
Both parties have a lot to offer.
It’s time for the childish name calling to cease!
It’s time to start working together for the good of patients!
It’s time to stop the stupidity!
It’s time to realise that both parties are here to stay
It’s time to grow
It’s time to accept
It’s time to heal
It’s time to stop having private little clubs that only certain people can join
For the sake of Humanity lets stop this stupidity, and start to make some sense, lets work together !!!!!!

Just like the Queen when we travel abroad I take my little box of remedies which deals with all those nasty bugs like Hep A and diseases like Malaria. If it is good enough for HRH it is good enough for me.

For all the skeptics out there have a look at the figures for the cholera epidemic in London in the mid 1800s when hundreds and hundreds of people died in the conventional hospitals compared to the homeopathic hospital where the death rate was next to none. What more proof do you need????

I will stick with my homeopathy thank you and stay drug free unlike the rest of my pensioner friends who take a cocktail of drugs for their aches and pains, diabetes, high blood pressure etc., etc.,

For those of you who want drugs and all their side effects good luck to you, you have the freedom to chose that path if you really want to, that is your choice. I am sure you will agree that the important thing is that we all have freedom of choice on how we wish to look after our health.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=103 - On being certain: believing you’re right even when you’re not

“Burton discusses how certainty interferes with science. “Integrative medicine” guru Andrew Weil set up tests of osteopathic manipulation for ear infections, and when the experiments showed no effect, he said, “I’m sure there’s an effect there. We couldn’t capture it in the way we set up the experiment.” This kind of thinking is rampant in alternative medicine. Burton thinks that if Dr. Weil recommends osteopathy for an ear infection, he should inform the patient that the recommendation is based on an unconfirmed belief…”

The reviewer also includes a quote from Richard Feynman, which those who would accuse modern scientists of arrogantly believing they have all the answers would do well to reflect upon:

“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things… It doesn’t frighten me.”

But to suggest that people with fatal illnesses such as Cholera should forgo proper medical treatment beggers belief. Anyone suggesting that has to be either completely ignorant or cynical enough to knowingly give medical advice that could lead to someone’s death.