Placebo effects are very real, as all doctors are fully aware. Indeed
"conventional" science recognises them to such a degree, that the
placebo-controlled trial is one of its most widespread methods. Why would
rational experimental designs use placebo controlled trials if it did not
recognise this link between patient perceptions of healing and how important
they can be. Thge ideas are not restricted to alternative medicine as you
The reason why alternative medicine is unscientific is in fact because it
has persistently failed to demonstrate effects beyond thos of placebo and
yet its advocates never concede the most rational explanation of why this is
so, i.e., that their methods are nothing more than placebo. Once
alternative, or any other, methods can demonstrate evidence to ack their
claims, then they will be accepted.
As it is your passage (again) portrays a deeply misguided view of science
that is a mere parody of it. This msirepresentation of science does nothing
to support the claims of alternative health advocates and is a common
technique that they succumb to in the absence of any solid evidence to
So called 'scientific' pharma
medicine has killed/killing not only millions of animals needlessly every
year, it's also killing and debilitating many, many humans too.
Bristol-Myers Squibb have just been fined a whopping $515million for
mis-selling drugs, inducing doctors to prescribe drugs inappropriately, and
setting fraudulent prices and this is only one example of many.
The reason why so called 'scientists' won't hear of natural cures is
because it will take the money away from them, they aren't interested in
cures, greed is what motivates them!
My intention is not to gloss over the malpratise of
pharmaceutical companies. As I have said before, they are to be watched
like hawks, regulated and continuoally questionned to ensure that whatever
they are doing is of benefit, nor harm.
Bu any criticism of pharmaceuticals is not evidence that alternative
medicines work. Scientists do not work for pharmaceutical companies. Many
do, most dont. The reason why good scientists are yet to be convinced that
alternatives work is precisely that- there is no convincing evidence. Once
that appears, they will be. As has been the case with e.g. St John's Wort,
Please be careful not to fall into the fallacy that science and the
pharmaceutical industry are the same thing. And don't be distracted from
supporting alternative methods by criticising the pharmaceutical industry
(which scientists do). The best way to find genuine, widespread, universal
support for alternative methods is to provide water tight evidence that they
work. That all any reasonable person should expect.
If you genuine beleive I am talking nonsense, its worhwhile considering
carefully what it is am am suggesting. That anyone, from any background,
pharmaceutical company, alternative practicioner, whoever, should provide
evidence for their claims and ask themselves carefully why they can't if
this is the case. Hardly a biased or unreasonable position.
"Here's a new problem for authorities trying to keep performance-enhancing
drugs out of sport: even being given a placebo on the day of a competition
can benefit athletes.
Fabrizio Benedetti and his colleagues at the University of Turin, Italy,
timed how long young men could operate an exercise device while blood flow
in their arm was restricted, making the exercise painful. During two
practice sessions a week apart, some were given morphine injections, which
enabled them to exercise for longer. A week later the morphine group
received a fake injection, but still managed to exercise for longer,
seemingly oblivious to the pain (The Journal of Neuroscience, vol 27, p
Doctors have long known that placebos can have a significant effect in
medicine, but till now no one had considered their implications for sport.
"Should we consider morphine conditioning in the training phase ethical and
legal?" asks Benedetti. According to rules issued by the World Anti-Doping
Agency (WADA) in Montreal, Canada, athletes are allowed to take opiate
painkillers such as morphine during training, but not on the day of a
competition. Alain Garnier, medical director of WADA, says they are aware of
the problem. "It is not an easy question," he notes."
This demonstrates that unless you consider placebo effect when testing
your medicines (as evidence based medicine does), then your treatments may
be nothing more (which seems to be the case for treatments such as
Until a more honest and rational approach to such treatments is embraced
by their practicioners (as opposed to the insistent that they "work because
we know they do"), then alternative medicine will sadly, fail to be fully
complementary, as it should be.
"Alternative medicine," which is actually too broad a
definition, has a different model, in that it considers the whole of the
human being, an extremely complex system. This means there are a lot of
variables that cannot be controlled for, so it is never possible to "prove"
beyond a doubt that some treatment always "works."
In fact, it has been estimated that the placebo effect is a major element
in conventional medicine as well - as much as 56% of the effect of any drug,
INCLUDING MORPHINE, has been attributed to the placebo effect.
My point is that you cannot study "alternative medicine" with the same
randomized double blind trials as conventional drugs -- it's a whole
different way of seeing the world. Those of us who use homepathy,
acupuncture, herbal medicine, food remedies, and the like have had distinct
experiences that these do "work". Many people who exhaust the nostrums of
conventional medicine eventually go to the "alternatives" to find relief -
and very often do. That is enough proof for us.
Every biological reaction in the body is regulated by
reaction conditions - such as pH, temperature, levels of minerals and
vitamins, etc. Conventional biomedicine largely ignores the influence of
these physiological systems. The same applies to extractions in for example
the digestive system where blood flow, pH, and blood quality affect the
function of the digestive tract and of the ability of the blood to absorb
Accordingly biomedicine ignores the effect of the physiological systems
to regulate organ function. Moreover because STRESS affects the stability of
the physiological systems conventional medicine effectively ignores the
effect of stress upon health.
As Lynne MacTaggart has often quoted: Conventional Biomedicine is 'a
I would also like to add that Placebo effect cuts both ways and
bigger colourful pills given by Doctors probably have more sway than
"discredited alternative medicines " in this area.
With regards to homeopathy in particular you seem to be unaware, (perhaps
a little biased?) that there have been numerous research papers published
supporting the efficacy of homeopathy in the last few years. Research is
being actively encouraged and pursued in the field of homeopathy as more and
more scientific minds are realising the benefits and are applying themselves
to demonstrating its effectiveness.
Granted we do not have the enormous ammounts of money that large
pharmaceutical companies have to do the research, in order to achieve a
headlining drug, but on the other hand when was the last time a homeopathic
remedy was retracted from use because it had unsafe side effects?
European Commission research projects
comment upon the need to overcome 'industry roadblocks'. To get research
funding to support such projects requires that you recruit serious medical
professionals who's word can be respected. Perhaps the way forward is to
look at the principles underlying CAM. For instance homeopathy has been used
by Russian researchers - they have isolated and manufactured the antibodies
produced by homeopathy which have subsequently been registered for use as
pharmaceuticals in Russia. Such antibodies are now the subject of intense
research by pharmaceutical companies such as GSK. This proves that
homeopathy has a serious scientific basis but it also proves that it works
by the same criteria as any other pharmaceutical.
By researching the principles you can get around the allegations that you
are pursuing some sort of anti-pharma crusade. Sooner or later research
into these 'principles' will be accepted and absorbed by pharmaceutical
industry. The competition between big pharma knows no bounds. Every drug
study compares one drug with another competitor's product. Don't think they
are ganging up on CAM. If they can find a way to make a significant research
finding which will elevate them to the top of the big pharma premier league
they will do so.
Equally as misguided are statements like "Conventional
medicine largely ignores the influence of physiological systems". Again,
this comes from a beleif born of ignorance. Evidence-based physiogical
science are what form the entire basis of our understanding of organ
function, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, etc. I'm afraid you
cannot borrow terms from evidence based medical science unless you also
accept its methods, which demonstrate alternative medicines to be placebo
effects (so far). Not being able to understand the mechanism of how
homeopathy might work is irrevelant, since many conventional medicine are
demonstrated to work before their precise mechanism is established (such is
the complexity of the human body- beleive me, this is not something lost on
modern medicine science!!!)
The most up to date analysis of quality studies into homeopathy
demonstrate no effects greater than placebo. It is a very weak and telling
argument to attack drug companies (which I whole heartedly do, since they
must provide robust evidence for what they claim and I am equalliy as
sceptical of their claims as anyone elses) as a defense of homeopathy.
Either homeopathy works or it doesn't, totally irrespective of anything
GPs, surgeons or drug companies are doing.
I beliive alternative medicines may have a role as complimentary
therapies to evidence based medicine. What I disagree with are unfounded
claims and misguided arguments, such as homeopathy doesn't have a
requirement to demonstrate that it works because it is "special". That is
to decend into irrationality.
I would like to see greater study of alternatives, just how is it that
practicioners maximise the placebo effect so that patients can gain apparent
benefit. Surely a combination of these approaches with evidence based
treatments would be a wise approach? Wiser in my view, than an
iiresponsible campaign of fear against evidence based medicine, modern
medicine in general as a means to overcome a lack of good evidence to back
alternatives. Scare tactics are harmful, unecessary and ultimately will do
alternative medicine and its practicioner a lot more harm than good.
So, all I wanted to say is, no matter what any Doctors say, no
matter what any big name research institutions say, I am convinced that
alternative medicine works. Period. And in closing I definately need to say
that when I first visited my "holistic doctor", I was very skeptical that
anything like just changing my diet could do anything for me. I mean
afterall, everybody ate like I did. It had to be safe & good for you, right?
He has not set out to prove if homeopathy works. However he says
there is no longer any scientific objection to the methods by which it is
said to work.
There is always a way to do other things. e.g. lower cholesterol levels
by other methods than statins, build up your bone profile etc etc, with no
side effects. I today have spoken to a lady who has developed polymyalgia
as a result of drug treatments. She is not amused. Until conventional
medicine can astound me with its treatments, I will not be converted. Also
there are a lot of conventional treatments that are not effective, but
continued to be done "because we've always done them" Do you think people
would carry on with homeopathy if it didn't work? They're not fools! Often
it is last resort, and the result of some unsympathetic doctors who don't
want to know.
My babies and animals have had homeopathic treatment to excellent effect.
How is that a placebo effect?
Why shouldn't placebo effects
also apply to babies? I can't see why they would be exemt from their
effects. Animals also. Which species of animal? Mammals? Reptiles?
I can see that where each treatment for each patient is different, then
properyl designed clinical trials are very difficult to conduct. But it can
be done, the claims of homeopathy are very easily tested in reality
For example, if a group of homeopathy practicioners were to prescribe tap
water as opposed to homeopathy treatments for a period of time one could
independantly observe whether their patients responded differently. This
could be randomised and blinded, so compared with another group who use
genuine homeopathy treatments with their patients. Neither group of
practicioners, nor their patients would know who was getting what (double
blind) and this would be compared between the two groups (randomised).
That would be an interesting experiment. Do any practicioners here have
predictions of what the outcome might be? If such an experiment provided
positive evidence for homeopathy, and was replicated across groups and
treatments, then there would be a basis from further exploration into a
possible mechanism that could explain why homeopathy treatments differ from
tap water, (which presumably has memory too?)
Randomisation and blinding are used in all good science, medical, academic,
all good science. It is a very powerful method (I hope you can appreciate
just how powerful and if homeopathy could cross that hurdle convincingly
(i.e. repeatedly), then beleive me, if would find mainstream support.
Just imagine is treatments were not given blind? Then we would never
really know if the treatment was a plecbo effec or not. And if it were not
randomised? Then we would never know if it worked better than any other
intervention, such as the time you spend with the patient, of the attention
you give them.
When scientists conduct experiments, they use these methods simply
because they know that if they don't, if they ignore them and simply claim
"I have found an effect!", they know that people will be sceptical untill
they can rule out other explanations for the effects they have found. I am
not biased against alternative treatments, I would criticise scientist (and
do, when refereeing research papers!) who failed to apply proper methods.
That's all I am doing here.
Too many successes might seem like evidence, and indeed it is.
But it is not conclusive and to a sceptic (as we all should be), not
Your example of farmers who use homepathy as alternatives to antibiotics.
Do you know which infections they treat this way? Do they use them as
alternatives to vaccination also?
Pharmaceutical companies do indeed have vast, vast revenues that run well
into the billions. As such, their claims should come under very, very close
scrutiny. I can't imagine any reputable scientist (and nor have I ever come
across one) who would claim otherwise. And yes, being one of the most
profitable industries in existence, and the UKs last example of successful
R&D and manufacturing, they have some very serious politcal wollop.
But you seem to be suggesting that the reason why homeopathy cannot
provide evidence (i.e., positive results in the very simple and easily
achievable experiment I outlined) is because of the vast revenues of
pharmaceutical companies? I'm not sure I follow this logic. If you have a
criticism of Big Pharma, then I think that is sound and valid as long as it
remains scepticism and is never cyncism (and with all due respect, it sound,
as does this entire website, like cynicim). But a criticism of one body is
not support of another.
Let suppose that homeopathy genuine does work and is finally demonstrated
to by robust and repeated means. Can you imagine the NHS seriously turning
its back on such treatments? Why would NICE break itself paying for a drug
that has sots hundreds of millions to develop over 15-20 years, when a very
simple water based treatment would do? Pharma definitely has political
wollop, but not in the same league as a Health Minister who could slash NHS
spending, and hence all our taxes, by literally billions. Just think about
that because it really is important.
Surely you can see that there is more to it than this. In my day,
alternative medicine was better known as complimentary medicine, and I think
that's where it really has some genuine merit. Use drugs as a last resort
(and they should be if good practise is being followed). Promote good
lifestyle, excercise and healthy diet, sleep and ways to avoid stress (all
conventional medical advice that any GP should be good at and use as first
line!). But with this, learn from the alternative medical practicioners who
really are very adept at maximising placebo effects and making patients walk
out of their offices genuinely feeling better. Add this to the genuine
biological actions of evidence based drugs when required and I think we
would have a better system.
Surely the issue does not have to be quite so polarised and irrational.
Surely a more realistic approach (if one genuinely is interested in patient
benefit first and foremost) is a pragmatic approach that optmises all the
methods available and the best parts of each approach?
But this has to be done so honestly. Not trusting the level data
manipulation that big pharma can be guilty of (test them, test them, test
them, be sceptical!), or the pseudoscientific claims of alternative health
practicioners (be just as sceptical!).
Sadly a lot of what comes across here is cynicism, which I hope you will
appreciate has no place in any sensible debate and certainly not one
concerning hoiw best to treat people are are not well.
How does this actually work in practise, using the methods that
However, With so much money at stake, influencing the whole
'healthcare' systems, research outcomes and education is totally expected
and people have a right to be very wary, as you rightly agree.
Many hands on 'alternative therapies' are easily proved to work and
indeed logic should prevail.
Most of us understand the power of touch in changing brain chemistry,
which then influences all the other hormones and these in turn influence
every part of our being...mentally and physically.
..............This is not a secret, neither is it rocket science, or
I am at a loss as to why much of the accepted nutritional advice is so
logically incorrect and does not marry up to metabolic process
understandings....and yet the FSA, Diabetes UK, hospital nutritionists, etc.
still advise... 'low fat' no saturates, sugar in moderation and "a third of
our diet should be starchy carbohydrates"!
Big food industry maybe influencing things?
If I may, I the type of hands on therapies that you
meantion having real benefit in the field of palliative care. When people
really are very ill and hospitalised, it is right to plonk them in a bed and
periodically have a doctor approach them with possible bad, then worse, then
eventually the worst of all news? Sure, people must know what is happening
and it would be unethical to mislead them. But what harm (and indeed,
surely of benefit) would it do to have a practicioner use some hands on
method that might help releive that persons pain in a way that would not
alter their awareness in the way that morphine does.
But I would not say this was an alternative to evidence based medicine,
but complimetary to it. I would even say money would be better spent making
hospital meals better, or even providing (forgive me) some truely ralxing
experiences such as music or massage to dying patients than the costs
incurred by overprescribing medicine to people whose lifetysle have lead
them to require them.
But, I suppose, it is very diffcult for everyone to follow the correct
Conventuional wisdom sets out guidellines on what an ideal balanced diet
should be. It only does this since modern food option mean that very high
saturated fat intake is the norm for many people. Guidelines really just
that- guidelines. Of course, they do not aply to everyone. Someone who
sits at a desk all day needs very little carbodhydrate. Someone who works
on a building site all day needs more.
Of course our bodies cannot function without the correct level of lipid
intake, it is vital. The problem is that, on a population basis, this
appears to have gone too far and we are exposed to very high levels of
saturate fat unlike ever before, and so health authorities provide this
advice even though it doesn't apply to everyone (I doubt Dame Kelly Holmes,
the Olmpic runner, nneds too much remindind from DoH on diet).
One could blame food manufacturers (just as much as pharma comapnies in
my view). Or we could blame our own bad choices in the face of good medical
advice (do not cut out saturated fat, just reduce it). Intersting.
get real guys.....this is a paradigm war of the most incredible
proportions.....survival of the human race is at stake.......maybe no bad
thing reading some of the entrenched views written in this discussion.
I take it you have
applied to these sources and from what you say, have failed to be awarded
any funding? That's not unusual.
The trial I suggested would definitely not cost a few hundred thousand
pounds. Why has no one done it? And if such experiments have never been
done, can never be done because of a lack of funding, then how can you claim
that your methods are anything more than untested hypotheses? You've just
talked yourself out of having any evidence..
If you consider that the physiological systems regulate the
processes of pH, temperature, blood cell content, osmotic pressure - the
reaction kinetics affecting every reaction and extraction in the body - then
you will understand that there is an emerging understanding of what
constitutes a placebo effect, a psychosomatic effect and the influences
exerted by the physiological systems.
Let me repeat again the claims of Russian researchers who have isolated
the polyclonal antibodies associated with homeopathy. These are being
produced and used in pharmaceutical formulations. Moreover there is a
manufacturing relationship with the UK company Angel Biotechnology. These
polyclonal antibodies are now the subject of big pharma research. There is
no doubt that homeopathy works - there is doubt that homeopathic
practitioners are able to use the technology precisely. This is not a
criticism just an obervation that practitioners are human and humans make
My final comment is related to the assumption that clinical trials are
the best way. Do I doubt that such an evidence-based approach is necessary -
no - but I am sceptical that the process of clinical trials is subject to
abuse. Such methods must always be reviewed and revised. There must be
satisfactory safeguards and I doubt that this is the case. The fact that
there are so many side-effects due to drugs and vaccines proves that the
system is not sufficiently robust.
Science is only as good as the prevailing state of knowledge! Where will
our understanding be in 10, 20 or 50 years? Look back and see the history of
medicine. It is littered with theories and therapies which have over time
been discredited. Biomedicine still believes in the reductionist approach
and that the function of brain and body are entirely separate. Enough said.
modern biological view sees the brain and the body as separate. The brain
is part of the body, (quite an important part actually!). It is no more
seperate from the body that the lungs are.
You are just redefining medical science to make it mean whatever you
would like it to mean!
Scientific knwoledge will only progress at its current rate if people
abandon belef held systems and claim that they are beyind the relams of
scientific understanding and experimental testing, even when they are quite
Instead of repeating your information about the Russian researcher, why
not provide names, location, research details, publications, references
i.e., where you got this information from, so we can check it for ourselves?
You may find some very interesting
information/logic/research references at the following links.....
.....Then, make your own minds up as to what is really happening!
I don't agree that we are generally eating too much saturated fat.In fact
the opposite generally and the lipid 'damage' is often from vegetable
oils,not animal fats!
I expect that many of us here are very aware of the hundreds of thousands
of people...evey year.... who are seriously damaged, or worse, by the
Pharmaceutical industries products....qute a problem and paradox, for the
takers of the hypocratic oath I would think...
The existence of such theoretical viewpoints are
included in the technology VIRTUAL SCANNING. There is now a 440 page
textbook available about this technology and its origins: 'Virtual Scanning
- a new generation of healthcare - beyond biomedicine?'. It was published in
August 2007 and has received excellent book reviews.
You keep missing the point that the study of the body's PHYSIOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS is a major omission in medical research. Their existence is not in
dispute - refer to the MERCK MANUAL pages 3-5 - but in terms of the
practical consideration of these systems all current research explores
merely the symptoms associated with their abnormal function and not how they
regulate organ function, cell and molecular biochemistry. I hope that I
have made the issue quite clear.
If there are SYSTEMS which regulate the body's function then knowledge of
their function can be used to induce health and wellbeing.
I must also take issue with you when you reject that mental and
physiological health i.e. the brain and body, are dealt with separately.
This is just not so. In Nottingham we have the mental health trust and we
have the two hospitals which deal with issues related to the body e.g.
births, deaths, injuries, etc. There are drugs for the brain and drugs for
the body 'and never the twain shall meet.'
Every medical reaction in the body is subject to the same reaction
kinetics that apply to each and every chemical reaction. In chemistry this
is pH, temperature, pressure, concentration of reagents, catalysts and the
levels of reacting products and waste products. The same applies in the
human body. These are pH, temperature, concentration of reagents (vitamins),
catalysts (minerals e.g. Magnesium, Selenium, Zinc, Chromium), levels of
proteins and substrates, and the toxins which accumulate. Their levels are
regulated by the physiological systems which regulate pH, temperature,
breathing (oxygen), osmotic pressure (Sodium/Potassium), excretion
(accumulation of toxins), digestion (levels of blood glucose, vitamins and
The existence of these systems is not in dispute. Look up physiological
systems or systems biology on the net and see the work of specialist
researchers. What has been identified by Russian researchers is the
structures of the physiological systems and how they are regulated
presumably as part of the autonomic nervous system. This is what is so
Medical science definitely
doesn't beleive that that which we call mind is a function of our very
complex brain. But a completel neuroscientific understanding would not
provide us with a full understanding of mind, since so much of what makes up
mind is subjective experience. But your view that because psychiatrist
exist independent of other branches of medicine, that this proves medical
science has a dualit view is just plain wrong. Ask any neuroscientist.
Biological science does study physiological systems. In studid them in
great detail. In fact that's where out knowledge of them comes from?
I'm afriad you've lost me, I really can't follow what point you are
making at all.
The examples you give really are just that- examples. Hence,
anecdotal evidence (that's what I mean by anecdotal evidence: a collection
of examples that suggest something (in this case, that homeopathy can be
used to successfully treat animals). But that is all anecdotes can do-
provide a hypothesis that can then be tested under controlled conditions to
rule out alternative explanations. You haven't provided any evidence for
that (and the onus in on you to do so, since it is your claim), so yes, your
evidence remains no better than anecdotal.
Don't get me wrong, I am not being biased against homepathy here. This
is what scientists say to each other all the time! Make a claim and expect
to be pushed for sound evidence or a request to withdraw the claim.
Since you admit you are cynical, then their really is little point with
any dialogue with you. it is completely pointless to debate with a cynic-
by definition their minds are made up, they beleive what they want to
beleive regardless of any evidence to the contrary. it is an irrational
position so, with the greatest of respect, not one really worth engaging.
You own logic is in peices though. One the one hand, the government
reject alternative treatments (which isn't even true) becuase of the
financial cost to the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, the mind
boggling massive revnue saved if the NHS were to adopt water-based
treatments doesn't come into your logic, it is just dicounted by you. So,
as you admit, your opinion os not based on sense, just an ingrained cynicism
of all thing pharma.
Damagin report about homeopathy don't come from pharma. They come
directly from homepathy practicioners themselves, who cannot provide
evidence for any effects greater than placebo. That's really where the
problem lies. Of course, I would be in total agreement with your conspiracy
theories if there was sound evidence that homeopathy genuine does work just
as well if not better than evidence based treatments. But it doesn't exist,
when tried it fails. It obviously means a great deal to many people who
feel very strongly about this particular topic. But sadly that doesn't make
Just don't go telling people who really are ill and need proper medical
care than homeopathy is anything more than placebo until you have GOOD
evidence for that (instead of a couple of stories that reinforce what you
will beleive regardless of the evidence against!)
treatment for each animal unique, as it is in humans? If not, then why not?
Some more detail about this would be appreciated because so far it seems
Ten years ago I had a brief flirtation with breast cancer and, finding
the drug treatment on offer(through a huge clinical trail then in progress)
made me feel quite ill, I spent my last salary cheques before retirement on
visits to a variety of alternative practioners, first to cope with the
effects of the drugs (which it was later revealed to me were not appropriate
for my kind of tumour) and then in the interests of maintaining general
health and discouraging recurrences.
Well I am still here to tell the tale. I have found the herbalist very
helpful indeed, the acupuncturist also and, yes, homeopathy works! Not
always, not for everyone, but with a little foreknowledge the results can be
very surprising. It is a fascinating area.
Don't you think it's worth remembering that the human body has a natural
tendency to heal itself. We all tend towards recovery. All medical
treatment, whether surgical, pharmaceutical, psychiatric or psychological,
or 'alternative' simply helps, encourages or enhances the physiological
trends which are already in place. Maybe alternative treatments simply
trigger the body's own healing tendencies. But, before we dismiss treatments
as "no better than a placebo" we need to be properly thankful that a placebo
can work and understand why and when, so that we can use it in a variety of
applications and situations, instead of squabbling in this ridiculous way!
We need a 'science of recovery'.
What I am against is saying that
something which is placebo is actually something else. Admit that is
placebo and study it properly without the need for further claim.
Well, if there are any homeopathic vets
reading this site, maybe they can answer. When I have spoken to homeopaths,
they tell me that their methods do not use diagnosis (they treat the
patient, not the symptoms) and that every treatment is therefore individual
for each patient. So who does this tranlsate into treating for example, a
herd of cows? Does each cow recieve an individual treatment? On what basis
does one decide? Why is the farmer calling the homeopath in the first
place, if a diagnosis is not necessary (you use the example of mastitis.
That's a diagnosis. So does homeopathy use diagnosis or not?)
Your quote Allen Roses out of context. Do you know why he said that?
His comment was from a conferece where Rose was promoting the value of
pharmacogenetics- the technology that allows medicine to be matched to
specific genetic profiles. Am evidence based technology with huge
potential. Roses comments were extreme to highlight the importance of this
technology. Marketing talk. But if you think otherwise, lets have some
examples. Tell me about a medicine which is commonly used but which doesn't
work for most people? Just one.
Again, we hear the same non-logic. Asked to provide evidence that
homeopathy works (anyone would think this was difficult to do), we are faced
with anecdotes of how people "swear by it" (which is definite evidence of
placebo effects and nothing more), then a tirade about the evils of Big
Pharma and how the only reason why homeopathy hasn't replaced evidence based
medicine is because of economic and political pressure on the UK government
by Big Pharma.
Think about this carefully. Firstly, what evidence is being opressed by
Big Pharma that homepathy works? Where is this mountain of evidence
provided by homepaths, that has failed to make it into any published journal
failed to make it past peer review, failed to convince anyone, but exists?
If the evidence was there, if the NHS could slash its buget by many
billions, you don't think there would then be just as real economic and
political pressure to use that instead!? You beleive that a great
conspiracy exists, so no wonder you are cynical. Cynics rarely require any
evidence to support what they beleive. They just know it to be so. I'm
afriad that's just not good enough a basis for any sort of rational
Yes, placebo is a very real effect, an ackowledged one. Conventional
medicines are tested and must demonstrate that they have an effect
independant of this. Homeopathy doesn't. I don't have any problem with
that, if homeopthy makes people feel better, then great. What is
unacceptible to to argue against the mountain of evidence that this effect
is more than placebo. I would have infintitely more respect for the
homeopath who would stand up and admit reason, admit waht the evidence is
saying and explore the advance placebo effects of their treatments properly.
That would be so refreshing, they would be accepted as rational people, as
opposed to dreaming up some hocus pocus about the memory of water, while
ignoring the vast, huge wholes in that silly idea and covering them over
with "ahh, but you just have a closed mind about these things".
Science criticises itself and its methods perpetually, if it doesn't it
is not science, it is just gabble. Homeopathy never criticise their own
methods (obviously). That's why they are utterly woeful at definding them
Just medical politics. Alternative medicine has a monopoly so it can say
what it wants and that only gets reported as Allopathy Inc also owns the
That is why we get that absurd name--complementary medicine, an invention
of allopathy as they hate the word alternative for obvious reasons but had
to offer some crumbs to alt med. then surprise surprise, you get the aburd
prof of comp med, we all know who, who trashes alt med/comp med at every
opportunity. Hello? Talk about a setup.
and notice it is always homeopathy who gets kicked, and no right of
reply, and no articles by homeopaths that I have ever seen in media. Only
Allopathic experts ever get media space. Pretty obvious what is going on.
and you will never hear about the well proven Vitamin C cure for
Vitamin C is essential for good health and proper immunity,
but provided someone has a good diet, they will be getting enough.
You provide a link that doesn't actually provide any evidence for this
effect that you claim- just quotes from a doctor saying how much it works.
Anyone can say anything they like! That doesn't make it so.
We need to see research before beleiving this effect, let alone advise
others that it is "well proven"
Why is this evidence so hard to produce, right here?
miners are all dead about you
"let alone advise others that it is "well proven"
I would have though 1,200 peer review citations was a bit of a pointer
plus 2 medical doctors 40 years work in clinical practice
plus the top 2 nutritional scientists (Stone & Pauling)
would be enough for anyone who can think for themselves
you mean, the evidence was enough for Pauling, who was
the expert, but not enough for you?
what sort of evidence do you want exactly?
one that comes down the pharma pipeline from Glaxo?
or, let me guess, the evidence to show MMR causes autism?
that is never going to be enough, even if every kids get vaccine autism
you can't 'believe' anything other than pharma, so save me the bull'
The link you provided just leads to an articles which refers
to these publications:
 Stop America's #1 Killer by Thomas Levy MD, JD
 Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable
by Thomas E. Levy, M.D., J.D.
 The Roots of Disease: Connecting Dentistry & Medicine with Robert
Kulacz, D.D.S.; Foreword by James Earl Jones
 Optimal Nutrition for Optimal Health: The Real Truth About Eating
Right for Weight Loss, Detoxification, Low Cholesterol, Better Digestion,
and Overall Well-Being
 Uninformed Consent: The Hidden Dangers in Dental Care with Hal
Huggins, D.D.S., M.S.
And of course I will beleive something that isn't pharma! Plenty of
evidence based treatments have absolutely nothing to do with drug therapy,
so obviously. And nor do I beleive all data that comes from pharmaceutical
companies (God forbid). This whole polar idea you have is a real red
Anyway, maybe you have provided the link already and I missed it, but I
would like to have a look at whichever of the 1200 studies you feel are the
replies to your post.
Read his book on Vit C for infections.
or Klenners articles
and Levy is one of the top nutritional MD in the world, by all accounts,
so he would know would't he.
"And of course I will beleive something that isn't pharma! "
You haven't yet. I can't think of a more glaringly obvious example
than vit C and infections. But, if you were after the truth, you would
it all by yourself.
am interested in the original data. Not an author's book. Even if they are
100% correct and I agree with them anyway, don't you appreciate the
difference? One lets me make my own mind up, the other presents the data as
they see it. I would rather remain unbiased from the outset and make my own
mind up. Wouldn't you?