Society of Homeopaths exploit death of child for their own gain
Posted by gimpy on October 2, 2009
The tragic and preventable death of baby Gloria in Australia due to neglect by her homeopath parents has been reported in the news this week and has led to some debate on curbing the excesses of homeopaths. The Quackometer has argued that it is the nature of homeopathy that allows cases such as this to develop, a rejection of modern medicine is inherent in the teachings of homeopaths and no amount of regulation will change this, and what we need is not regulation but criminal prosecution. The Society of Homeopaths disagree and have issued the following press release.
The Society of Homeopaths is calling on MPs to support its application for the statutory regulation of homeopaths following the high profile case of a baby who died in Australia after her parents refused conventional medical help.
The move would offer better protection for the public in the UK as under current law, anyone without training can set up and practise as a homeopath.
The Society, the UK’s largest organisation representing professional homeopaths, is in the process of applying to the Health Professions Council (HPC) for statutory regulation.
Currently, 65 per cent of all registered homeopaths are members of the Society, which has long been committed to the highest standards for homeopathy, having run a voluntary regulatory system for the last 30 years and a course recognition process for the last 15 years. Further, it was the first homeopathy organisation to institute a Code of Ethics & Practice.
Ten years ago, the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science & Technology published a report into Complementary & Alternative Medicine (session 1999-2000), which categorised homeopathy as a ‘Group One’ therapy along with acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine and osteopathy.
Of the five, homeopathy is the only profession not yet in the statutory regulation process although the report acknowledged that “under The Society of Homeopaths, the non-medical homeopaths have organised themselves well and their professional organisation should mean the transition to statutory regulation does not present too great an upheaval(1)”
The House of Lords’ report also called for more research. By the end of 2007, 134 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these trials, 59 were positive i.e. demonstrating that homeopathy has an effect beyond placebo; eight were negative and the remaining 67 were inconclusive.
On Monday September 28th, Sydney couple Thomas Sam, 42, a lecturer in homeopathy, and his wife Manju, 37, were jailed for the manslaughter of their nine-month-old daughter Gloria, who died of malnutrition and septicaemia in May 2002.
Chair of the board of directors, Jayne Thomas, said: “This was a tragic case where the parents concerned refused conventional medicine even though their daughter was seriously ill. Here in the UK, The Society’s Code of Ethics & Practice (sections 22 & 27) states that cases of a serious nature should be advised to stay in contact with their GP, that patients should be advised where another form of treatment may be more immediate and effective and that any symptoms suggesting an underlying condition should be referred for medical investigation and diagnosis.
“Statutory regulation is a natural step forward for homeopathy and builds on the work of the profession over the last ten years to independent regulation. The Society’s registered members have met our academic requirements, completed a registration process, hold comprehensive insurance and agreed to abide by a Code of Ethics & Practice. Statutory regulation will independently formalise this process and most importantly, offer greater protection for the public.”
For more information, or to set up an interview with Jayne Thomas, please contact Pamela Stevens at The Society of Homeopaths on 0845 450 6611 or pamela_stevens@homeopathy-soh.org
(1) House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology, Session 1999-2000, p52
The argument put forward by the SoH that regulation, specifically their Code of Ethics & Practice, would have prevented this case is thoroughly specious. The sections cited by the SoH, 22 &27, state:
22 When dealing with cases of a serious and possibly terminal nature, ensure that the patient is fully aware of the advisability of keeping their GP informed of their condition. Where possible and appropriate, ask for the patient’s permission to write to their GP concerning their progress.
27 A competent homeopath identifies those occasions when a patient’s condition is:
• beyond the present limits of their clinical competence and expertise.
• likely to receive more immediate, effective benefit from another form of treatment.
• showing signs and symptoms suggestive of an underlying condition which requires referral for investigation and other medical diagnosis.
22 does not place an obligation on the homeopath to inform the GP, only the patient. Under this section the homeopath washes their hands of any responsibility for the patient informing their GP. This is quite understandable, the homeopath is entering into a professional relationship with the patient, whatever you may think of the level of professionalism, action cannot be taken against the patients wishes. This section would not have prevented the death of baby Gloria as the parents did not wish to see a GP.
27 is clearly ridiculous on the grounds that homeopaths are not medically trained so have no clinical competence or expertise and that because it doesn’t work anyway other treatments should automatically be preferred. However, for the sake of argument, if we assume that homeopathy works, as homeopaths believe it does, then it still would not have prevented the death of baby Gloria. This section only defines competence, it does not prevent incompetent homeopaths and thus would not stop an incompetent homeopath from causing harm. It would allow the SoH to label them as incompetent though, should that not be obvious.
It is clear that neither of these sections would have prevented the death of baby Gloria. It is hard not to see this as an attempt by the SoH to exploit a tragedy to further their political aims of regulation, which are opposed by other professional societies. This viewpoint is supported by the many examples of the SoH supporting similarly reckless behaviours in their own supporters, such as the SoH funded AIDS and malaria trials in Africa, the refusal to condemn homeopathic vaccines used at the expense of proper ones, and seminars by AIDS denialists to give just three examples.
In addition to this, as part of the professional development of homeopaths, the SoH have organised the following event.
|
|
Peter Smith – Investigative homeopathy and difficult cases This day is designed to introduce some different approaches into your practice when you are faced with puzzling cases. These days the world is a lot more complicated than in the days of Hahnemann, especially when we consider pollution and the environmental toxins that we all face. Peter will share some of the therapeutic tools that he has used during over 25 years in practice, including dealing with panic attacks, sorting out hiatus hernias, pregnancy and childbirth issues, treating the elderly in nursing homes and the importance of a home visit if you just can’t seem to make progress with a client. Participants are invited to bring along ‘tough cases’ for the group to discuss, with a view to finding different and more productive lines of investigation. |
This clearly shows that the concept of keeping ‘tough cases’ within the homeopathic family is part of their training, they are encouraged to share their stories of clients who cannot progress and seek advice from the homeopath peers on new treatments to try. After they have done all this and their patients still aren’t getting better then they may consider going to a doctor. It is this behaviour that killed baby Gloria, not the lack of regulation.
The Quackometer article on baby Gloria concluded:
protecting future children like baby Gloria will require authorities to abandon the belief that they need to regulate homeopaths like medical practitioners and instead treat them according to the more accurate picture of them being a pseudo-medical and mystical cult with dangerous and irrational beliefs
I agree.
DBH said
Given how much the alternative/ homeopathy camp likes anecdotes and considers them genuine evidence, the baby Gloria case should be the best evidence (in their view) that a) homeopathy does not work and b) down right dangerous.
I am waiting for their hypocritical selves to come out and say this is just n=1 and says nothing about the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy.
Poor wasted life.
Neuroskeptic said
Quite. As you say, the idea that homeopaths are competent to judge whether a case is “beyond homoeopathy” is ridiculous (unless they also have a medical degree, but, I don’t think many do.)
Just for fun here’s what I’d want the SoH to adopt -
“* SoH homoeopaths do not treat patients who have not i) first discussed their condition with their GP or another doctor and ii) who agree to keep (or allow the homeopath to keep) their GP informed of their progress at all times.”
Like it or not homeopaths are medical professionals, because they deal with ill (or at least symptomatic) people. If we must have them, they should integrate themselves into the mainstream of medicine and only work with the blessing of a qualified doctor.
warhelmet said
The SoH are horribly cynical and self-serving.
draust said
Just when you think the SoH have surpassed themselves…
…they ramp up the delusional Chutzpah to eleven.
If homeopathy was actually anything to do with medicine, or healthcare, and the “training” meant anything beyond a marinating in fringe beliefs, then you might be able to train people better.
But as many discussions here, and postings by homeopaths and even the occasional ex-homeopath make clear –
see the recent thread on Homeopaths, herbalists and Matthias Rath for a recent example
- homeopathy is really an ideology and a belief system. Thomas Sam, we are told, was a “Senior Lecturer” in homeopathy (internet rumours suggest this was at the “Sydney College of Homeopathic Medicine” – can anyone track down the definitive info?), and he and his wife were both University graduates. Jeremy Sherr (see threads passim), busily pursuing his vision for treating AIDS patients with homeopathy, is one of homeopathy’s most successful, charismatic and revered teachers.
So I’m squarely with Gimpy and Le Canard Noir here. It is NOT about “incompetent practitioners” – and in any case the homeopathy “colleges” don’t discipline their members for applying homeopathy. Can we come up with one case where they have disciplined someone for NOT saying “Forget homeopathy. What you need to do here is go and see a conventional doctor, ASAP”?
And it is also NOT about “not enough training”.
It IS about an ideology which people follow with blind obedience, sometimes with tragic consequences.
How anyone can talk about “regulating” that beats me.
warhelmet said
I like this from the SoH’s Code of Ethics and Practice -
A homeopath is required:-
55 To comply with the law of the state, territory or country where the homeopath practises.
56 To take all reasonable steps to be aware of current law as it applies to their homeopathic
practice.
Considerable numbers of SoH members violate the Cancer Act 1939. Homeopathic “colleges” like the North West College of Homeopathy offer courses in “cancer protocols” – which no UK homeopath, except Faculty of Homeopathy members, can legally use. And what do the SoH do? Nothing.
Feh.
gimpy said
The Quackometer might have something to say on this soon.
Pete said
‘After they have done all this and their patients still aren’t getting better then they may consider going to a doctor.’
I thought that most sceptics knew that homeopaths with few exceptions just dont do primary care in the UK. If you find any doing primary care then you should be able to facilitate some prosecutions. It is no secret that this process is already underway as sceptics seek out any primary care homeopaths daft enough to be doing this in the UK.
The reason homeopaths exist is because people come to them after failed conventional treatment, often after many years. Trying to get some of these patients to retain contact with their GP can be very difficult or impossible. I dont think that you will ever get it that evidence based treatments sometimes just dont work or go wrong. There comes a time when there are no mor options. People get desperate, so desperate that people even try ‘placebos’ which still sometimes work even though they know that they are taking ‘placebos’- having been educated that homeopathy= placebo by the media.
Education of the masses doesnt stop people taking sugar pills from homeopaths or stop sugar pills sometimes helping.
gimpy said
Pete, I think your argument is a reasonable one and certainly describes a subset of people who use homeopaths, however, this is irrelevant to the blog post which is arguing that the SoH’s claims that regulation would have prevented the death of baby Gloria is nonsense.
Also, if you read the Quackometer’s article, you would know that there is a real concern that homeoapths actively preach against conventional treatments rather than act as a adjunctive palliative option for the seriously ill.
warhelmet said
Pete – I’ve seen more than a few blogs from teh homeopathic mummies and you do see discussions on places like mumsnet about homeopathy in pregancy and treating children using homeopathy. And you see the celebrity endorsement articles q.v. Annabel Croft. I’ve seen some other things to that suggest to me that the scenario you describe is not universal.
nobby said
in the case of baby gloria the homeopaths involved did keep their GP fully involved but they chose to ignore any advice given. so they followed section 22 fully.
“They repeatedly rejected conventional medical treatment and instead opted for homeopathic remedies.
Then, against doctors’ orders, they took the baby girl to India where her condition deteriorated.”
taken from that news story.
as for section 27 who judges taht something is beyond their limits and capabilites? they seem confident in the action they were taking.
“showing signs and symptoms suggestive of an underlying condition ”
i thought the usual line was they treat the person not the symptoms and the symptoms were caused by underlying conditions?
“If the body cannot express its discomfort on the skin, the problem moves deeper inside, often affecting the lungs. It is not uncommon to find that the child with eczema also has a weak chest or suffers from asthma. I have noticed that sometimes even after a homeopathic prescription has cleared the skin beautifully, the child’s asthma will worsen. This tells me that although one problem has been dealt with, the original cause of the eczema has not. The skin is an organ of less importance to the body than the lungs, so the body is seeking to protect the lungs by expressing the “disease” on the skin. It is necessary for the homeopath to discover and treat the cause of the problem, in order to clear the skin.”
taken from:
http://www.homeopathyactiontrust.org/poh/childhood_eczema.html
“Eczema:
The homeopathic view is that eczema is a disease of the whole metabolic system. The skin is trying to get rid of toxins in the bloodstream. Manifests itself as patches of dry skin, which become red, scaly and itchy. In severe cases, little blisters form which weep and can become infected. ”
taken from:
http://www.babyworld.co.uk/information/baby/homeopathy/homeopathy_eczema.asp
just a couple of quick cut and pastes…sry the links do not work…it was either make a coffee or look up how to do it. the coffee won of course
gimpy said
Oh nice find on those links.
draust said
The interesting quote above about:
- shows yet again how homeopaths substitute 18th century metaphorical reasoning for reality.
You can see why people used to believe this sort of thing, when they had little to go on. Eczema and asthma may well not infrequently be “co-morbid”, as also allergies. So if a physician in the 1850s had said this, there would be some useful observation in there, but a completely wrong purported explanation, and hence an illogical deduction and course of action.
Not unexpected a hundred and fifty years ago. Nowadays is a different matter.
Of course, these days we actually know why asthma, allergies and eczema are often found running in families – they are all examples of atopic conditions. Susceptibility to these (an “atopic constitution”, to take an old-fashioned phrase) is partly hereditary, since it depends on the genes of your immune system. Hence why people with suspected asthma get asked about a history of allergies / eczema in their FAMILY, as well as any family history of asthma.
The homeopaths, of course, prefer to stick unswervingly to the metaphorical answer hypothesised two hundred years ago.
Would anyone who would prefer, as a point of principle, to be treated by a doctor with the methods current c. the battle of Waterloo than by a modern doc, please raise their hand so the rest of us can have a good giggle?
Wendy Pearman said
Hi Gimpy
What I find sad in this is the complete absence of humanity in the SoH press release.
I feel it would be better to write nothing, from their position.
If they were going to write something surely they could have shown a little more human acknowledge of the tragedy, and the sadness in it, for the parents and child; even if those parents behaved irrationally.
Then they have an opportunity to ask their members to self-reflect about their own practise and any risks they take. They could reinforce, in plain, sympathetic English, their ethics. Bullet points from a manual, that you may well have never read, is not enough.
I have learned a lot from these sites and what comes clearer and clearer to me is the inhumanity that pervades the thinking and writing from some of the groups you highlight.
Instead the SoH pushes for regulation, which means more money for them. Without regulation, homeopaths could get cheaper insurance and advertising elsewhere.
Wendy Pearman said
Something else that I’ve realized from your sites.
For the SoH to take this and say ‘Let’s never let it happen here’ would be to take responsibility.
A common thread across the CAMs is that they don’t take responsibility. They think they live in a separate world where they can do as they like and they are not responsible for failures, like baby Grace. They are not answerable for failures and there is no mechanism, other than the Law, to address concerns.
I’m truly glad to have met you people who, just because you want proof, point out what their responsibilities are; how much they can affect vulnerable people; potential for, and actual, harm. When the harsh light of ‘real world’ falls on them, they feel victimised. All they ever had to do was recognise that they live in ‘real world’ and while ‘real world’ does not accept the remedies it could accept their behaviour if they had chosen to relate to it and chosen to behave according to ‘real world’ rules.
‘Real world’ rules on this are simple. When Baby P died in Haringey there was an investigation and review of practices to stop it happening again. That would be a more responsible, more appropriate, more ‘real world’ and more human position for the SoH to take on baby Grace. Perhaps then critics could view them differently.
AndyD said
I don’t imagine that he father, Thomas Sam, could be considered under-qualified, in homeopathic terms. Here’s part of his bio
and here’s a lot more, including his specialties – one of which was eczema.
Thomas Sam was a senior lecturer in homeopathy – teaching others how and when to use it – and whilst his web page speaks of consulting with GPs, it seems clear he took most of his advice from his own teachings and those of other homeopaths when it came to the crunch with his own child.
How would any sort of accommodating “regulation” have prevented his daughter’s death?
gimpy said
Thanks. This, on top of everything else, absolutely undermines the SoH’s arguments.
Budicius said
My friend recently died of Liver cancer within three months of being diagnosed. Conventional treatments were all she tried- drugs and chemotherapy. She did not improve in any way shape or form, not in the slightest. Shame on conventional medicine. Shame. The doctors were blinded to anything alternative or complementary, brainwashed in their belief that conventional medicine is the be all and end all of therapy. With years of funding and research into cancer you would think conventional medicine could have pulled something from out of its sleeve to offer some improvement. I’m sure Homoeopathy probably could’nt do much in such a case either. But what about meditation, visualisation, anything, anything! The preachers of evidence based medicine failed. Baby Gloria’s case is shocking. Her parents were blinded to anything conventional. If a treatment is seen to be ineffective either alternative or conventional, how about trying something else. For the love of God this is human life we are talking about. Precious life that is to be preserved and defended by whatever means are available.
AndyD said
But Thomas Sam did try conventional medicine more than once on his daughter. Each time she responded positively and each time he ceased treatment and returned to magic water.
He couldn’t use your excuse – there was a known treatment for Gloria’s condition, he chose not to use it.
If a treatment is seen to be ineffective either alternative or conventional, how about trying something else.
Like what? Prayer, naturopathy, reiki, homeopathy, crystals, psychics, sacrificing lambs, angel therapy, aromatherapy, chelation therapy, sodium bicarbonate, a liver fluke zapper, detox diet, chiropratic, bach flower, orgies, coffee enemas, magnets, apricot kernels, dancing naked around a fire, chanting gibberish, slapping your backside with a ping pong paddle, pyramids, acupuncture, collecting ornamental hippos and arranging them in fractal patterns… ???
How do you choose from things that have no evidence base? Throw a dart? What on Earth can you base a decision on?
And before you categorise me, let me say that I don’t fully blame the father. The Australian government allowed him to practice his “witchcraft” and teach it to others.
Our government spends millions of dollars warning against tobacco and alcohols. Our various state governments have banned “fuel saving devices” as a complete waste of money because, no matter how much you might believe in them, they don’t work. Yet the local pharmacy openly advertises homeopathic products and weekend “wellness” pages are filled with advertorials for all manner of useless remedies and therapies.
The Australian government(s) share much of the blame here.
fictionalvicky said
I can relate to how you feel (my grandfather died of lung cancer – after irradiation and two cycles of chemotherapy), but you shouldn’t let your emotions make you blind to rational thinking.
There are many forms of cancer, so you can’t really expect medicine to have a cure for each and every one of them, no matter how many years of funded cancer research have passed. Also, there are different stages and (unless you believe in miracles) there’s no reason to expect that a treatment will be equally successful for all stages.
Would you really have wanted the doctors to randomly try everything else, no matter how illogical and out of their own area of expertise it may be? Do you think you’d be happier if they had tried therapies they didn’t believe in, or is it possible that if she’d died anyway (chances are she would) you’d be just as angry, accusing them of using her as their “guinea pig”?
I know how it feels to know that there’s nothing left to do or try. I was with my grandfather when his doctor told him there were no more treatment options and all he could offer was palliative care, and you can believe me, it was one of the worst days of my life. Would I have felt better if he’d told my grandfather he would now try homeopathy, crystal healing, … as a last resort? I don’t think I would. I want doctors to tell me the truth, and the truth is that sometimes they don’t have a treatment, no matter how much they care for their patient. If you want to try alternative treatments they won’t stop you, but wanting them to suggest those treatments even though there’s no proof they work is asking a bit too much.
Budicius said
Thanks for your replies. Current understanding of evidence-based medicine didn’t work in my friends case. For cryin’ out loud it doesn’t even work for the common cold. This is 1986 isn’t it?. Exactly, it’s 2009 . Come on scienists, put your thinking caps on and find a therapy that works. Is this not a little embarrassing? With our understanding of the human genome, physiology, pharmacology etc, it shouldn’t be all that complicated anymore as it once was to find treatments that work from the simplest ailments to more complex ones.
draust said
Budicius
The sad reality is that cancer is a rotten disease (or rather diseases), and some types are more rotten (and harder to cure) than others. Cancers of the GI tract are particularly resistant to chemotherapies (hence hard to kill that way, in contrast to, say, many leukaemias). They are also often hard to operate on (poorly accessible, except for colon), near to other important structures they may have grown into (invaded – also problems for surgery or radiotherapy). They are also often asymptomatic (apart from very vague things which could have lots of other non-sinister causes) until they are quite far advanced – by which time they may have invaded other structures (see above) or have metastasised to multiple other bits of the body. So by the time your (e.g.) pancreatic or liver cancer is detected, it may well be inoperable, and carry one or more DNA mutations which make the cancer cells incredibly resistant to chemo.
There have been major advances in detecting, and treating, many kinds of cancer over the last 50, or even 20, years. These advances come from painstaking science and rigorous clinical trials. For instance, kids now usually survive childhood leukaemia, whereas until the 60s it was a death sentence.
http://www.leukaemia.org/about-leukaemia/incidence-of-childhood-leukaemia
Sadly liver cancer is one of the ones where not much progress has been made. From the CRUK pages:
———————————————————
Primary liver cancer statistics in general
As with many other types of cancer, the outcome of your treatment depends on how advanced your cancer is when it is diagnosed. In other words, the stage of your liver cancer…
Liver cancer in adults has a poor outlook because it tends to be diagnosed late. By the time someone has symptoms and goes to their doctor, the disease is very often in the advanced stages. Only about 1 out of 10 people (10%) are diagnosed in the early stages of this disease when surgery can help.
Overall, around 20% of people live for at least 1 year after diagnosis. Around 1 in 20 people (5%) live for at least 5 years.
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=4907
—————————————————————–
These are sad figures, but how is visualisation or meditation going to rein in rapidly-growing, chemo-drug-resistant, liver carcinoma cells?
[Answer: it/they can't]
The complementary or “mind/body” therapies may have a role in cancer palliation and helping patients accept / cope with their disease, prognosis, and treatment – cancer doctors like Michael Baum have used them for precisely this. But meditating, or acupuncture, or Reiki, is not going to magically take out super-hard-to-kill mutant cells. That is just how it is.
As to developing treatments for these killer cancers, the only thing to do is keep doing the research, bit, by bit, by bit. There is plenty of ongoing work, but sadly it is not going to be easy – and one just has to accept that, hard though it is when one loses people one is close to.
Chris said
Budicious, the “common cold” like cancer is not just one disease. I believe at last count it is caused by over 200 separate viruses.
They are mild compared to the influenza virus, and even that changes year to year.
I am sure someone is working on it. It may be an offshoot of the vaccine that will someday be one that prevents all forms of influenza.
rosa said
Just had a case of Desmoid Tumor yesterday.
The young man is two years in homeopathic care only, after three operations and radiation and a suggestion to cut off the fourth tumor along with his right hand (his tumor is in his palm).
His doctors have seen him last friday for his regular check up,
looked on his tumor and said to him.
“You are the proof that EBM does not know anything about cancer!”
After a process of treatment where he was free of pain most of the time and change of remedies or potencies everytime he experienced pain again/
The man is ten times more confident today.
His tumor only recently started to reduce in size. He was never promised anything but amelioration of his pains and betterment of his general condition/ That is what happened in two years and now, the tumor reduced to half its size, he is able to use his palm and bend his fingers freely.
He is a changed man!
Thanks to classic Hahnemanian homeopathy.
His doctors said to him “you must be secretly taking all kinds of herbs…”
read this link about liver cancer and homeopathy :
http://www.hpathy.com/veterinary/siciliana-phosphorus.asp
There are many more on the net. human liver cancer, where EBM has only inefficient torture to death to offer.
gimpy said
Hi Rosa, are you claiming that homeopathy can cure cancer? If so, could you comment on how widespread this belief is amongst homeoapths?
Robin said
Gimpy if you were really interested in the scope of homeopathy in the treatment of cancer I could give you a lot of information including many cases, including brain cancers. I could put you in touch with people with first hand experience, including very experienced physicians and happy patients. However as your mind is completely closed to the possibility that homeopathy can work under any circumstances for any condition, there is no point.
It seems such a waste of a life to be continually criticising something you dont understand and that has so much potential to ease suffering.
warhelmet said
Many of the UK homeopaths who talk about “cancer support” or “cancer help” use wordings that suggest that homeopathy does something to the body that causes it to “heal” itself. If this is what they genuinely believe, then homeopathy is doing nothing that the body can not do itself. And the limitations of what can be healed are the limitations of the body’s capacity for self healing. Does homeopathy allow for the concept of spontaneous remission? If so, can it distinguish between where homeopathy has “cured” cancer and where the body has “cured” itself and homeopathic treatment hasn’t actually done anything?
Wendy Pearman said
Hi Warhelmet
Something I was often told in homeopathic training is exactly what you’ve said ‘The organism has power to heal itself’. It was also said that the subconscious has power to heal eg we can produce opiates and many other chemicals that we need.
I feel that is separate to claiming that homeopathic remedies heal. I feel that, as a homeopath, we need to differentiate the difference between the homeopathic remedy and ‘trust, faith, belief’ results.
Through life I actually met people who felt healed at Lourdes. For homeopaths the questions are; Is it the remedies? Is it trust, faith, belief? Do we offer medicines that trigger healing? Or are we using faith healing? No problem if we are, but let’s get some honesty. For generations faith has healed. Even though I’m an atheist I don’t have a problem with it. I’d just like to be honest about what I’m doing.
I, and modern medicine, have no issue with the idea that the sub-conscious is potent and will heal. I’m sure that modern medicine would love to know how to tap into that. By the way, I initially trained in medicine before I took another route, so I have confidence in this.
warhelmet said
Wendy – no. It’s a bit more fundamental than that. I don’t what to derail this thread totally, but it is more about whether the “healing” that homeopathic manipulation of the vital force can deliver anything that the organism, in ideal conditions, could not. And whether that action is distinguishable from the organism healing itself.
ez said
To warhelmet
“And whether that action is distinguishable from the organism healing itself.”
Well, you will have to read about primary reaction and secondary reaction (described in paragraphs 63-64-65 in the Organon of Hahnemann 6th edition) that any (including medicinal – and homeopathic) preparation/substance has on the organism/person, but probably it will say you nothing unless you go on to actually observe these things yourself in your real life… And if you have doubts, then try to think, for example, why all sorts of withdrawal syndromes to various drugs – medical or not – exist.
Basically if you can observe the primary action followed by the secondary action, you can be sure that what caused the primary action was curative – and it does not need to be a homeopathic remedy, by the way. Any curative response, “the organism curing itself” is usually preceded by a primary reaction of some sort, that is aggravation (even potential, well the person thinking about what might happen if… for example, this is why psychotherapy might be effective when the psychotherapist manages to “press the right button”) of the original condition, only conventional medicine does not delve into this and are always left in awe and wonder at “spontaneous recoveries” which can indeed occur without any obvious intervention – the point here is “obvious”. Hahnemann has studied such cases and inquired in what was happening to people before this or that change in their health has occurred, and he was able to notice these things. It’s sad that nobody as thorough and clear-minded is widely accepted by today’s medical community, although I’m sure such people exist.
Nash said
Of course Rosa, homeopathy has only efficient torture to death to offer in these cases.
rosa said
Nash
You don’t know!
You slander!
Or you know and you outright lie!
Chris said
Then prove him wrong by providing real evidence to support your statements. Not random anecdotes or links to random websites, but real scientific evidence showing that homeopathy (and no conventional medicine) did what you say it does for a non-self limiting condition.
nobby said
interesting article on the cat with jaundice.
did the cat have liver cancer as we never found out what the tests said? there is no information on it on the forums of that site either?
seems like the homeopath was ready to treat for cancer with no evidence of cancer where as the vet was not going to do anything until they had evidence. why is that do you think?
refering once again to number 27:
“27 A competent homeopath identifies those occasions when a patient’s condition is:
• beyond the present limits of their clinical competence and expertise.
• likely to receive more immediate, effective benefit from another form of treatment.
• showing signs and symptoms suggestive of an underlying condition which requires referral for investigation and other medical diagnosis.”
so in other words. they are not trainined in vetinary but they still chose to take the cat aware from the vet and the specialist care. there was no definate diagnosis of liver cancer but instead of waiting for the results of the test to see what the medical diagnosis was they treated the cat for liver cancer anyway.
and this is somehow a good thing?
gimpy said
Nobby, it is illegal for lay homeopaths to treat animals in the UK. Any homeopath who wishes to do so must also be a qualified and registered vet.
It is often said that the British upper classes love their animals more than their children, this attitude seems to extend into the legislature of the country where quacks dealing with human patients are subject to less regulation than quacks dealing with animal patients.
notspock said
Sounds like a good idea to treat a cancer that doesnt exist.
Thats about the only way it could “work”.
warhelmet said
Wasn’t that one of the late Hulda Clarke’s tricks?
nobby said
definatley a good thing for the animals over here but their owners still have that choice i guess.
you would hope though that they are not all like that one studying for a black belt in Dung Woo treating illnesses that have not been diagnosed.
i keep looking at the tumor part of it and i keep thinking that becasue its the sypmtoms and not the disease thats treated could it be considered as proof that homeopathy thinks it knows alot about lumps?
Budicius said
Thanks Draust for your thoughtful reply. Chris- I thought scientists might have given up on looking for a cure for the common cold thinking it to be too complicated, and here they are looking for treatments for cancer which is considered to be even more complicated and life threatening. Everyone would love to see a ‘magic bullet’ to eradicate all disease and I think this is something that researchers are ultimately striving to find. By taking medicine back to the drawing board more effective treatments are found. Similarly Hahnemann took medicine back to the drawing board and came up with Homoeopathy with which he observed positive results, even if some were placebo. Surgery has made great ground over the centuries, but medicine has failed miserably in many areas- conventional medicine, herbal medicine, homoeopathy, none of it offers satisfactory fast acting treatment for chronic disease or even some acute diseases. Medicine has been barking up the wrong tree the whole bloody time. A new approach from a new angle is what’s needed. Stem cell therapy is a start. Any other ideas?
Budicius said
Hi Rosa, Here they are jumping up and down about the inefficacy of Homoeopathy yet their own evidence based medicine can’t even cure the common bloody cold. Pharmacies around the world stock all kinds of conventional crap for the cold and none of it works. Pharmaceutical companies know this and they continue to rake in revenue from these ineffective treatments. Disgraceful.
AndyD said
Some do what they claim – ease the symptoms of colds. Basically, they dry up the snot. That’s about it. Some are probably useless, even at what they claim to do. Our local pharmacy sells a selection of homeopathic “remedies” that will no doubt prove somewhat less effective than those products with active ingredients.
As Chris pointed out – the common cold is anything but “common”.
Mike said
Budicus; I would agree the marketing of sweet syrups as cold treatments is one of the not-so-secret shames of the pharmaceutical industry. So I hold my hands up in surrender as a fully paid up pharma shill and long term researcher into carcinogenesis, anti-neoplastic, anti-inflammatory and neuropsychiatric drug development, I have failed to meet your expectations. Please rescue me from my shame by joining the ranks of researchers into health interventions. It’s obviously only your input that can save us.
Budicius said
Nice to hear from you Mike, for someone who works in the field I appreciate your honesty. I would love to be able to help in any way I can. I may not have much in the way of intelligence but if there is any heavy lifting involved then I’m your man. What the hell are scientists doing in those universities?, partying?, sleeping?. Scientists need to pull their fingers out and do some work. A cure for the common cold is all I ask for, then we can move on to more complex conditions from there.
Maybe I should contact the consumer affairs department in my country and report to them that conventional treatments for the cold are pretty much useless and to get them off the shelves of our pharmacies. Imagine a mother taking her child with a cold to the pharmacy and there is nothing there. The mother asks the pharmacist- ‘Where are your cold and flu remedies?’ The pharmacist replies-’We don’t have any because our medical scientists are too stupid to find a cure for the cold, your child is just going to have to ride it out.’ This is a self limited condition but no child wants to suffer with the cold and have to ride it out. For Christs sake a cure for the cold is the least conventional medicine could do for kids.
Perhaps Homoeopathy has more to offer with its placebo effect.
Just about everyweek I hear trumpeted on the news about a new breakthrough in cancer research but never a cure. These breakthroughs have been going on since the 60’s or even earlier. All a little suspicious to me. Our public health system is in crisis, rising health costs, lack of hospital beds, obesity and diabetes on the rise. People are living longer but they complain of innumerable illnesses, the population is growing, the strain on the system is too much. The cause of this sad state of affairs I can only put down to two words- Conventional fuckin’ Medicine. It’s absurd and utterly deplorable.
Vaccination is fine. Surgery is fine. But conventional medicine needs to be able to find a cure for chronic illness as well as acute, before it starts taking the piss out of Homoeopathy.Just treating disease is not good enough, we want a cure. Conventional evidence-based medicine can’t bring somebody back from end stage liver cancer, neither can Homoeopathy. Really it’s a debate about nothing.
A cure for the sniffles is all I ask for.
Chris said
“Just about everyweek I hear trumpeted on the news about a new breakthrough in cancer research but never a cure.”
Where is the news of a new breakthrough from homeopathy?
I repeat, cancer is not one disease. What has happened is that there has been great progress in many kinds of cancer, and even ways to prevent certain cancers (like the hepatitis B vaccine, and both HPV vaccines). Many people are alive today due to advances in treatment in just the past ten years (I know a few breast cancer survivors, and over a dozen years ago our barber’s son was diagnosed with leukemia, and is now a very alive and healthy young man… but those are just anecdotes, you can check the data at http://seer.cancer.gov/).
What progress has homeopathy shown in the past 200 years?
And, again, I repeat… just like cancer the “common cold” is not one disease. There are over 200 types of virus that are known to cause colds, and they are not even all of the same type (about 110 are rhinoviruses):
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/commonCold/cause.htm
You would have to have two colds per year for over a 100 years to become immune to the “common cold”.
“But conventional medicine needs to be able to find a cure for chronic illness as well as acute, before it starts taking the piss out of Homoeopathy”
Why should real medicine go do something that is impossible before we criticize homeopathy? Wouldn’t it make more sense for homeopathy to show even a fraction of the success of real medicine before it can be taken seriously? What is the success of homeopathy compared to real medicine in regards to treating or preventing the following acute and chronic conditions?:
leukemia
type 1 diabetes
cholera
measles
mumps
rubella
tuberculosis
Hanson’s Disease aka leprosy
breast cancer
strep throat and Scarlet Fever (same bacteria)
bubonic plague
syphilis
cystic fibrosis
long QT syndrome
polio
non-Hodgkin lymphoma
rabies
diphtheria
pertussis
tetanus
…. and on and on.. this is a short list.
Remember, case histories are just anecdotes, which are not real data. It has to be a consistent history of homeopathy working for these conditions as well or better than real medicine.
notspock said
Boils.
Before antibiotics they could be close to fatal or disfiguring. Even until the 1950’s I’ve heard they were common, large, and explosive. I’ve never seen such things, and you’d have to be well over 60 to stand a chance of remembering those days.
PS: Isn’t “strep throat” part of what might have been described as a “cold”.
Chris said
No, strep throat is an infection from a streptococcal bacteria, which is why if you bring a child in with a fever, sore throat plus some other symptoms the clinic will swab the throat for rapid strep test, and then prescribe antibiotics. Scarlet fever is actually a disease from group A streptococcus bacteria, which is similar.
A cold is a viral disease that is usually mild, and may or may not include a sore throat. Possibly because each of the over 200 viruses that causes “colds” effect the body slightly different.
Mike said
Great! glad to have you on-board. Now we don’t need any more muscle; but if you have the intelligence to make a valid criticism then you have the intelligence to get an education and contribute.
However, if, by some miniscule chance, you’re just making unintelligent, uninformed and invalid criticisms because you like to hear the sound of your gums flapping then STFU.
Look forward to hearing about your continuing education project. Good Luck.
Budicius said
Thankyou Mike for your well wishes. I will endeavour to do my best.
Good luck with you in finding a cure.
Take care.
healthyskeptic said
Amazing. 27,000 people in the United States are killed by Vioxx and not one criminal charge. How many thousands world wide were killed by that drug. AND NOT ONE CRIMINAL CHARGE.
You are deluded AND OBSESSED in thinking that the problem is homeopathy or homeopathic practitioners. The problem is the denial that you are in about the dangers of conventional medicine and your virtual silence about it . Therefore you are unable or unwilling to put this into any context. Just like Goldacre in his Lancet article when he stated that one(!) malpractice case meant that homeopathy was dangerous.
Besides being ridiculous (beyond irony) since it was in a medical journal where possibly many of the medical people reading it were involved in or had been involved in some medical malpractic lawsuit.
But not only denial by skeptics but in other posts and comments you Gimpy and other skeptics EXCUSE the killing of children in the testing of vaccines and are very cavalier about it. So it is hyypocritical that all of sudden you criticize insensitivity about deaths of children.
There are many medical doctors that have been charged with manslaughter and convicted and there are thousands of people that have been killed or seriously injured by medical procedures and drugs. You can say that this is for the common good but then it is hard to say that about Vioxx or other drugs that have even passed the gold standard double blind. It is the whole research system that may be corrupt. But I know you don’t want to go there.
And that is the reason why many people are staying away from conventional medicine. You would do a lot more good by deliberating and writing about the deficiencies and problems there than obsessing about such a small number of homeopathic practitioners.
And you can go on with your totalitarian ideas of how to force people to get conventional treatment and keep blamiing homeopathy but it is just a fetish when you look at the state of conventional medicine.
And most importanly- another perspective—-> Many people actually get engaged with their state of health by seeing an alternative medical practitioner and thereby seek out conventional diagnosis and treatment rather than what you opine about.
fictionalvicky said
I’m delighted to return that compliment.
No one here said that medicine (you call it
“conventional medicine”) is without risks. Quite the opposite: benefit usually comes with a price, and you should always weigh up benefit and possible harm.
No one here said the research system is perfect. Things can go wrong, and that can have terrible consequences (just think about the TGN1412 trial some years ago), so if things go wrong it’s important to investigate. But as long as we don’t have a better way to find new drugs, we need this imperfect system. What’s the alternative to it? No more new drugs?
Corruption is an issue, too, but do you really think alternative “medicine” is free of it?
Since you brought up both Vioxx and Ben Goldacre, do you know that he and you are pretty much on the same side there? You don’t even need to buy his book, just take a look at his bad science column and you’ll see he’s highly critical of the pharmaceutical industry, and here’s what he thinks about Vioxx.
No one here excuses “the killing of children in the testing of vaccines”. What makes you think so? All we are saying is that you have to weight up benefit and harm. Benefit: fewer people get a disease. Harm: adverse effects to the vaccination.
Of course it’s ALWAYS tragic when someone dies or their health is permanently damaged, but research tells us that the risk of vaccines killing people or causing permanent damage is a lot smaller than the risk of the disease doing the same.
It’s illogical to think that medicine criticises homeopathy but avoids working on improving its own system – one doesn’t exclude the other (and “many people seek out conventional diagnosis and treatment because of alternative medical practitioners” is a very bold statement).
Warhelmet said
Forget the bit about engagement. Having read the Codes of Ethics for many of the UK alt.med bodies, most of them do make the point that faced with something potentially serious or life-threatening, the practitioner should impress upon the client the need to see a medical practitioner. Also, it is worth making the point that UK law has something to say about parents/guardians who do not seek medical help for ill children. Interestingly, the CThA go so far as to say -
I think this is pretty clear. Strange that the likes of the SoH can’t provide such cogent guidance to their members.
neum said
ordinary lab tests and other conventional medical tests can clearly show efficacy of homeopathic treatment.
In cases of allergy – after treatment the values have normalized.
In cases of apnea during sleep – sleep lab tests have shown a decline in apnea during the night sleep in the and a better oxigen level in the blood.
High blood pressure – checked after remedy has done work in other areas of health of the patient. Mainly what was observed his behavioural positive changes towards his family members and himself.
tumors reduced – felt physically better and scans shown definite reduction of tumor size.
Hematomas after traumas disappeared.
CVA’s treatment, unconscious people coming into awareness and wellness.
That on top of subjective feeling of pains relieved, migranes, arthritis, stomach ulcers, you name it.
Kindly look into the following link to a good explanation and links to homeopathic research and trials.
http://homeopathyheals.com/clinical.html
nobby said
neum,
“ordinary lab tests and other conventional medical tests can clearly show efficacy of homeopathic treatment.”
where is it clearly shown? its certainly does appear on that site you posted.
considering it is a thread about how regulation of homeopathy and in the case of baby gloria that:
“patients should be advised where another form of treatment may be more immediate and effective and that any symptoms suggesting an underlying condition should be referred for medical investigation and diagnosis”
maybe you could comment on this instead?
neum said
Indeed when homeopaths cannot find a remedy that works in a dangerous situation we do use other known means to alleviate life threatening symptoms.
We have not heard outcry such as yours in cases of dmage from Vioxx, nor in tens of thousands of superfluous operationsmthat maim the patients for life, and not in the myriad of iatrogenic diseases.
The outcome of the use of superfluous medications such as MRSA have not been condemned.
Instead you focus on one case of deathand magnify it as if it has been standing in comparison at all with the direct outcome of overmedicating millions of people.
What you stand for is not life and health – you will not be able to delude everybody.
Homeopathy is a gentle way of treating the many suffering people of the world its growth in the US alone has frightened the Corporations. In India their markets are losing milliards because of the vast use of homeopathy as cure for some half a milliard or more Indians, their mentality fits better with this gentle healing.
The WHO ruled by big farma to market its product world wide , and most of you are serving their goals and causes.
Be left with the ignorance that you inspire. You highly deserve it.
ade said
Blinded by profit, certain individuals attempt to fool the masses by maligning homeopathy, a medical science which offers the best hope of healing a world sick of chemicals, drugs and pollutants. Where will it all end? In spite of misleading statements from the WHO and disparaging headlines, the people will not be fooled. Those 500 million people who use homeopathy, learned its magic with their bodies and that’s knowledge they trust. As the poet Carl Sandburg said, “The people know the salt of the sea and the strength of the winds… the people will live on”. And homeopathy will live on.
1. http://www.garynull.com/pix/DeathbyMedicine_march09bf2Faloon.pdf
rosa said
more than half a million people die yearly from bad prescriptions in the U.S.A. and you “care” about baby Gloria…Bah, BS
This group of young scientists rwsponsible for the WHO fiasco, also stated “When homeopathy stands in place of effective treatment, lives are lost”. Not true. A relative handful of homeopaths have travelled to impoverished countries to assist after natural disasters or where effective medical treatment was not available. In doing so, they have saved countless lives. Actually, the counter charge is more accurate. The latest statistics show that conventional medicine is the leading cause of death in the U.S. 1
Blinded by profit, certain individuals attempt to fool the masses by maligning homeopathy, a medical science which offers the best hope of healing a world sick of chemicals, drugs and pollutants. Where will it all end? In spite of misleading statements from the WHO and disparaging headlines, the people will not be fooled. Those 500 million people who use homeopathy, learned its magic with their bodies and that’s knowledge they trust. As the poet Carl Sandburg said, “The people know the salt of the sea and the strength of the winds… the people will live on”. And homeopathy will live on.
nobby said
“more than half a million people die yearly from bad prescriptions in the U.S.A. and you “care” about baby Gloria…Bah, BS”
i think you will find everyone cares about the needless death of anyone
and your going to back that half a million people dying quote with some evidence? please say its “death by medicene” as i would like to know what medicene causes bedsores. you can read a great review of here aswell: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=136
i saw an article worded exactly the same as your last paragraph on a homeopathy site. is that you with the beard? it looks like 500 million people are being fooled by homeopathy or maybe they are just thirty?
“In doing so, they have saved countless lives. Actually, the counter charge is more accurate. The latest statistics show that conventional medicine is the leading cause of death in the U.S. 1″
countless lives! you mean they can count up to (allegedly)500 million who are using homeopathy but when it comes to (allegedly)saving lives the number is too great to count???
nice edit on the Carl Sandburg poem but thats not how it goes as those lines are a reworking of the original and are out of sync even with the “…”.
rosa said
YOU SHOULD BE SO LUCKY AS TO BE TREATED LIKE THESE HERE HORSES-:)
http://www.hpathy.com/veterinary/cohen-homeopathy-horse.asp
Chris said
The plural of anecdote is not data. Also, all of the horses had self-limiting conditions that probably improved with typical care one should give to horses (feeding, exercise, grooming, proper housing, etc… the things that my sister used to do, nothing with homeopathy).
Now you might have a case if one of those horses had been bitten by a rabid bat and had rabies. Please do tell us about the amazing cases of homeopathy curing rabies. Remember random websites with anecdotes do not count. It must be real verifiable evidence that one could read in a peer reviewed journal.
rosa said
everypost that carries the truth you negate, or hide.
You may be secretly using homeopathy for all I know like the big shots of the big farma. They do not take the vaccines or the medication perscribed for so many.
And maiming vaccines.
fictionalvicky said
Yes Rosa, OF COURSE we are all using homeopathy secretly, as are all of the big shots of the big “farma”. What’s the difference between “the vaccines prescribed for so many” and “maiming vaccines”?
Chris said
Can you tell us what “truth” you have provided us the real evidence for?
All I have seen you do is hurl insults (like this most recent post), make statements without evidence and post random websites with no association to either the argument you are making, nor with any quality evidence.
Chris said
Rosa, you mentioned “And maiming vaccines.”
Do please tell us how vaccines maim, especially compared to the diseases. Measles tends to kill one in a thousand of those who get it, mumps will cause deafness in at least one ear in one of a thousand who get the disease, tetanus will kill about one in twenty. So really, how dangerous are the vaccines compared to the diseases?
Be sure to include all supporting data. Links to random webpages or news articles do not count. Papers in real peer reviewed journals only, please. Thank you.
notspock said
Actually I get a big bloke from africa to kill a chicken for me every month. My health is fine thankyou.
rosa said
Christ and the rest of the devoted slanderers here.
Every link that provided some solid proof along with the post was censored automatically by Gimpy with the standard notification
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Your slandering is rediculous in view of the amazing data and people who just walk happier and healthier in mind and body, thanks to homeopathic treatents. (of course there are mistakes none so deadly as the half millions americans dying yearly from wrong prescriptions).
Tens of millions over the world where helped, whom the corporations with the cover of WHO – WHO do not give two hoots whether you or I are healthy or not, especially not the impoverished Africans or Bolivians or anybody but themselves for that matter.
Keep well, when you will not slander I will know you may be getting sick , swine , flu, GM food etc.
Chris said
Rose:
Please review your basic English textbook and dictionary. Asking questions and requesting data is not slandering. If the evidence truly exists, then please produce it.
Rose:
Then just list the journal, title, authors and date of the paper with the required evidence. With that information it would be very easy to look it up in PubMed, or to obtain from the nearby university’s medical school library.
leigh said
Doctors MD have waisted four years of studying homeopathy, they run clinics for water remedies that contain nothing-:)
Millions have turned to homeopathy, and return to homeopathy eventhough it is water.
Peter Fisher the homeopath to the queen makes a fool of the queen and her household.
Tina turner looks older than her age due to her homeopathic treatment. David Beckham as well. Bill Clinton does not use homeopathy.
Rockeffeller did only homeopathy that is why he was so poor and immoral. Gahndy has lead his people to distruction and swore by homeopathy, that is why he wore a loin cloth and glasses.
The list of gullible individuals famous and anonymous is very long we will not bring it here.
Yous are saints in this blog of Gimpy, you carry the wonderful novelties of medicines, Like Gardasil, GM swine flu and vaccine, iatrogenic diseases, and an end to overpopulation. You must be commended for Peace and Health Nobel prize all of you.
God bless you and give you strength to continue and raise the name of homeopathy again and again do not let people forget about it.
fictionalvicky said
If we followed your logic we’d have to adopt almost every religion in the world because (to sum up your arguments) “some people spend their life studying them, others turn to them and famous people are among their devotees”.
Why is it so hard to understand that “famous people use it” isn’t proof for anything?
warhelmet said
Use celebrity endorsements in advertising for UK homeopaths is problematic. Certainly, in print advertising is a no-no. Also, I believe that some of the homeopathic trade bodies state that advertising must conform to the CAP Codes – even though they don’t cover individuals’ websites.
As for doctors who study homeopathy? Well, there are a few but in reality their numbers are small. Most of the homeopathic “doctors” I’ve come across do not have recognised medical degrees.
rosa said
Yes right you are Waterhelmet soem of the doctors are not MD’s. Like Scholtan who is a CHemist basically, but studiesd also Medicine and became MD. Some are Physicists Phd. and Many Many Doctors MD. To name a famous few Dr. Vasilis Gehgas, Dr. Tinus Smits. Dr. Praful Vijyakar. Dr. Pravin Jain. ALl the homeopaths in Greece are Doctors who studied under VIthoulkas, after they were fully fledged MD’s.
So in Belgium, where Dr, Alfons Geuykens is one of the leading teachers. and so the list goes on and on. You will have to do a lot of fighting to bring it down. They have too many faithful followers/patients/
warhelmet said
Rosa – no, you misunderstand. The vast majority of homeopathic “doctors” are in India and they have qualifications like the BHMS (Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicince and Surgery). These degrees enjoy very little recognition outside of the Indian subcontinent. The “medical colleges” that provide them generally do not appear on the AVICENNA database – which is a list recognised by WHO. In many countries, a holder of a BHMS or smiliar degree, who called themselves a “doctor” or “physician” would be breaking the law. The stituation with qualification such as MD(Hom) or MD(AM) is worse because they can be bought from degree mills.
The UK, it is illegal for holders of the BHMS to call themselves Dr but many do. It is also against the ethical code of bodies such as the Society of Homeopaths. How are we in the UK to regard such people?
Chris said
Indeed, many years ago on an Usenet newsgroup one Indian graduate of a homoepathic school of medicine inquired how he could qualify to practice medicine in the USA. He was directed to the information on what was required to take the medical boards, which included the necessary prerequisite education.
Unfortunately he found out that the four years he spent in a the homoepathy school were essentially worthless.
With a little digging I found them. I want to avoid URLs, so just note that these are archived in groups.google (I really don’t miss Usenet, it became a silly place full spam):
Group: misc.education
Thread title: Bachelors in Homeopathy Medicine and Surgery [B.H.M.S]
Date: Aug 11, 2001
… he posts what was required, and then someone responded with
(I think he is referring to Dana Ullman)
Then later:
Group: sci.med
Thread title: International students in Homeopathy in the United States
Date: Sep 17, 2001
He ends the thread with this lament:
Oh, clicking on his username I found this gem…
Group: misc.health.alternative
Thread title: Jobs for Homeopathic Physician from India
Date: Jan 28 2001
Where he starts off saying:
The website where he got the erroneous information is that of the infamous Dana Ullman!
Chris said
Rosa, you are not the only one who gets messages put into moderation. I recently posted the Usenet postings from 2001 of a person who worked hard at getting his BHMS in India, only to find out that it did not qualify him to be a doctor in the USA.
He was not happy with the school for telling him it would work elsewhere, and finding out BSMS was essentially worthless.
ade said
You can go on finding one weak point in the argument like the relevance of the MD title for Indian doctors and sidregard the rest of the MD’s in Greece, in Belgium, and many more MD’s all over the world in countries where MD is not required to practice classical homeopathy. You can disregard PHd’s of sciences like chemistry and physics who become homeopaths after at least four to seven years of toil.
Which makes you waterhelmet suspect of other interests than the truth. Which is homeopathy works wonders at times, with chronic diseases of our times it is a toil to patient and homeopath. But when one adheres and persevers the results are positive, steady and they last longer than any medicine available.
The WHO is a dubiuous organization since its collaboration with the Farma and FDA. Its insidious activities, or outright sickening involvements with various impoverished populations has created havoc. The hypocricy of these organization is so great, as one big politician said “the bigger the lie the more the believers”.
Chris said
Claiming homeopathy works is not the same as proving it. So far there has been no real evidence that homeopathy is anything more than an elaborate placebo.
When you can show that homeopathy worked for a non-self-limiting condition (without the aid of real medicine), then you can start convincing us. Vague changes in so-called “chronic” conditions do not count. If that chronic condition is Type 1 Diabetes, and homeopathy fixes the pancreas so insulin is no longer required, that would be convincing. If you can cure tuberculosis with homeopathy instead of antibiotics then that would be convincing. If you can cure rabies with homeopathy and without rabies vaccine treatment that would be convincing.
Until then, you are shouting nonsense.
Nash said
“the bigger the lie the more the believers”.
Does this explain your belief in homeopathy?
rosa said
Not true. Plenty of evidence to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment (versus conventional medicine) there are myriad of evidence and many worth while trials, that were quoted superior in 1997 by the LANCET, before it was totally bought off by FARMA in 2005.
It seems odd to me that a well versed crowd like yourselves, WATERHELMET, DRAUST, GIMPY and the rest of the gang will not know it.
Look up Jack Galliardy Homeopathy in the net and you will find under one site many well conducted trials specified there. Will you ever stop slandering?
Chris said
Making us look up someone’s name is not an adequate form of evidence. Give us the journal, title, author and date of the paper with real proof that homeopathy actually works for a non-self-limiting condition in the absence of real medicine.
Non-self-limiting conditions would include things like Type 1 Diabetes, many bacterial infections (like tuberculosis, Hanson’s Disease aka leprosy), and rabies. The paper must be well reviewed and not be an unverified case report.