Thursday, 26 September 2013

Homeopathy for Injuries & Accidents

Homeopathy for Injuries & Accidents

Homeopathic remedies can be used for a variety of first aid health complaints, including injuries. Whether the injury is from an accident, playing sports, physical strain or another type of vigorous physical 
activity, it’s time to reach for 
your Homeopathic 
First Aid Kit!

Cuts and Scrapes
Apply direct pressure on the wound to stop the bleeding, then wash the wound thoroughly with soap and water. Apply Calendula Cream before covering the wound with a bandage. Repeat application with the Calendula Cream 3-4 times per day.
Additionally, homeopathic Calendula 30C can also be taken 2-3 times per day.
See an MD if there is much redness, swelling or pus buildup around the wound, if there are red streaks extending from around the wound, or if fever has occurred.


Apply ice packs to the injured part for 30 minutes to reduce swelling.
Arnica 30C or 200C is the main remedy for bruising. For minor bruising, take 2-3 times per day. For more severe bruising, take every hour the first day, then 3 times per day on subsequent days. Discontinue dosing after bruising improves.
Take Ledum 30C if the bruise feels cold and numb, or if Arnica has stopped helping. Ledum 30C is also the remedy of choice for a black eye. Take 3 times per day.
For bruising of the bones, take Ruta 30C. This remedy is indicated for bruising of the shin, kneecap, or elbow. Take 3 times per day.

Puncture Wounds

After being wounded by a sharp, foreign object, clean the wound with soap and water. Then, soak the wounded part in warm water for 15 minutes three times per day to speed healing. Cover the wound with a bandage if there is an opening in the skin. Apply Calendula Cream before covering the wound with a bandage. Repeat application with the Calendula Cream 3-4 times per day.
Ledum 30c is the most common remedy for puncture wounds.
Hypericum 30C should instead be given if there are sharp, shooting pains.

For puncture wounds, give one of the above remedies 3-4 times per day.

Strains and Sprains: Injuries to the Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons
Rest the injured part, apply an ice pack to the injured area, wrap a bandage around the injured part, and keep the injured part elevated.
Apply Arnica Gel to the injured part twice per day. Additionally, the following homeopathic remedies can be taken internally:
Arnica 30C or 200C is usually the first remedy to take after a strain or sprain. This remedy is indicated if there is bruising, swelling and inflammation.
Once the swelling and bruising has improved, you may want to switch to another indicated remedy, listed below:
Rhus Tox 30c is one of the most frequently indicated remedies after a strain or sprain. The pain and stiffness are worse on first motion, and are better upon continued movement. This remedy is commonly indicated after overlifting or physical overexertion.
Bryonia 30C if motion makes the injury worse, and the only way to relieve the pain is to keep the injured part very still.
Try Ruta 6C or 30C if the injury is close to the bone. This remedy is useful for injuries to the wrists or ankles, and for tennis elbow.
Strontium Carbonicum 6C is a good remedy to try for ankle sprains that have not responded to other remedies, or for recurrent ankle sprains.
Give one of the above indicated remedies 3 times per day for up to 3 weeks.

Fractures (Broken Bones)

After medical attention has been sought, the following remedies can speed healing:

Arnica 30C or 200C should be the first remedy given after a fracture. It will help with bruising, swelling and tenderness.
Eupatorium Perfoliatum 30C should be given instead of Arnica if there is not much bruising or swelling, or it can be given after Arnica.
Give the above remedies 3X per day.
After the initial pain and swelling have diminished, give Symphytum 6C, 3 times per day for 2-3 weeks.
Bryonia 30C is a useful remedy for broken ribs. Give a dose or two of Arnica first, then give Bryonia 3X per day.

Nerve Injuries
For injuries to the nerves, such as fingers and toes, give Hypericum 30C three times per day. Also apply Arnica Gel to the injured area.
Rest, elevate, and ice the injured part.

Head Injuries & Whiplash

Arnica 30C or 200C should be the first remedy given if there is bleeding, bruising, pain and shock. Give a dose every hour for 5-6 doses.
Hypericum 12C or 30C is the most useful remedy for whiplash. Give one dose daily for up to three weeks.
Natrum Sulphuricum 200C is useful for head injuries that have not responded completely to Arnica, or for people who have never been well since a head injury. Give 3 doses only, spaced 8 hours apart.

Those who are experiencing chronic pain, or have never been well since an injury, require constitutional homeopathic treatment. Contact to book an appointment.

Saturday, 29 June 2013

The Swiss government's exceedingly positive report on homeopathic medicine

For Hay Fever Help  - scroll down to next blog.


The Swiss government's exceedingly positive report on homeopathic medicine

The government of Switzerland has a long history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. Further, when one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.

In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland's national health insurance program.

The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.

It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

The Swiss Government's "Health Technology Assessment"

The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. This report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, plus they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).

And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients).

When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).

After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhoft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of upper respiratory tract infections and respiratory allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.

The authors of the Swiss government's report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only nine "high quality" conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Ludtke, Rutten, 2008).

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in "evidence based medicine," has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.

For a treatment to be determined to be "effective" or "scientifically proven," a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn't is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government's report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.

The next article will discuss further evidence provided in this report from the Swiss government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care.


Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011. (This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this book.)

Bornhoft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementarmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29.

Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote., May 19, 2009.

Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6.

Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.

Friday, 28 June 2013

Hay Fever Help

Hay Fever Help: Homeopathic Treatment and Other Self-help Tips

When working well, our immune system protects us by destroying dangerous bacteria, viruses and toxins that enter our body. In the case of hay fever however, something goes horribly wrong and our immune system starts to over-react to harmless substances such as pollens, grasses, and animal dander. This allergic response results in a cluster of symptoms that make life miserable such as sneezing, stuffy or running nose, itching, headaches, asthma, watery eyes, post nasal drip and fogginess.
While hay fever may seem to be about surface symptoms only, it is really a deep-seated complaint. Commonly prescribed sprays and tablets that suppress hay fever symptoms may bring temporary relief but theyn never get to the root of the problem. They are also associated with side effects and are the least helpful option for long-term improvement.
In this article we will show you some simple self-help measures that go a long way to reducing the frequency and intensity of hay fever symptoms, plus explore the homeopathic and conventional treatment options from the perspective of effectiveness and safety. Finally, a list of remedies commonly used by homeopaths to treat hayfever, along with when they should be chosen, will help you decide which one may help you.

Simple Steps for Managing Hay Fever
There are several self help measures that cost very little which you can do yourself to help with hay fever. They are:
  1. Drink plenty of water. When you’re well hydrated the mucous membranes of your nose remain moist to expel allergens more easily.
  2. Consider using a neti pot. These small pots can be filled with a warm sea salt solution and used to flush your nasal passages and expel irritants.
  3. Coat your nostrils. Lightly smear a non-absorbent ointment, such as paw-paw ointment, onto the inner surface of your nostrils to provide a protective barrier that traps allergens.
  4. Know your triggers. Most hay fever sufferers are affected by the wind but some are worse indoors while others itch and sneeze when outside. Avoid your triggers when pollen counts are high.
  5. Use Food as your Medicine.
Healthy fats and oils such as olive oil, fish oil and even moderate amounts of animal fats are important for a healthy immune system. Studies show that those who eat mostly polyunsaturated and trans-fats, as found in many margarines and processed foods, are more likely to suffer allergies.
Onions and garlic can be used for their homeopathic effect – the symptoms they cause, they can also treat. Both contain natural compounds that reduce the inflammation of hay fever. Add them liberally to your meals or, if you are up to it, eat them by themselves to reduce nasal irritation and streaming eyes.
Local raw honey can be used as a crude form of homoeopathy to desensitise yourself to local pollens from which the honey was produced. Start by taking a small amount each day before the start of hay fever season, gradually increasing to a teaspoon or more. Continue right through the season for best results.
Spices such as horseradish, mustard, chillies and fenugreek also help through a crude homoeopathic effect – they can relieve the very hay fever-like symptoms they produce. Add them liberally to meals or take them alone to thin mucus and expel irritants.

Safe and Risky Ways to Treat Hay Fever
If we want the best result for the least risk when treating our health problems, we must think carefully about the treatment we choose.

Conventional medicine depends on the allopathic effect1 for most of its treatments. It relieves symptoms by palliating or suppressing them for short periods of time. The drawback is that side effects are common and continual suppression leads to worsening health.

Homeopathy2 seeks to stimulate a self-healing response from the person’s own vitality. The goal of treatment is to strengthen rather than weaken this vitality so that full healing is more likely. Homeopathy does this through potentised3remedies that closely match the symptoms of the person’s disease and are free of toxic side-effects.

To get a better idea, let’s compare the two approaches in what they offer for hay fever.

The Conventional Approach – Allopathic Treatment
Conventional medicine treats hay fever with antihistamines, steroids, or desensitisation treatments. For stubborn cases that fail to improve, laser surgery may be used to destroy the mucus-forming nasal tissue. Let’s look at each option in more detail.

Anyone can be affected by the side-effects of antihistamines but children and the elderly are more vulnerable. Antihistamines can worsen conditions such as glaucoma, enlarged prostate gland, difficulty in passing urine, or bowel blockage, and their safety during pregnancy hasn’t been established. They also hold increased risks for those with liver or kidney disease.
Some of the most common side-effects include: headache; drowsiness; dizziness; blurred vision; confusion; dry mouth; constipation; and difficulty passing urine. And once the antihistamine effect wears off, hay fever symptoms are usually return.

Steroids (corticosteroids) for hay fever are available as sprays, creams and tablets. Steroids create many more problems than antihistamines. They lead to unpleasant and even dangerous side-effects such as high blood pressure, bleeding from the bowels or stomach, reduced healing, poor muscle growth, weight gain, and electrolyte imbalances. Long term use increases the likelihood of diabetes, glaucoma, and eye damage.
And if that’s not enough, additional side effects include mood swings, personality changes, agitation, nervousness, tiredness, lack of energy, and depression. There are certainly safer ways of managing hay fever than resorting to steroids!

Desensitisation Treatments
Homeopathy is everywhere – even in approaches sometimes used by conventional medicine. Modern allergy treatments that expose people to small amounts of the substance to which they are allergic, unknowingly use the homeopathic principle of ‘like treats like’. Homeopaths have known of this approach for almost two centuries but are also aware that if even smaller amounts are used, and in potency, the results are much faster and better.
Homeopaths also understand that while a homeopathic remedy prepared from an allergen (the substance that triggers an allergic response) can bring temporary relief or surface improvement, a deeper-acting remedy that addresses the person’s whole state of ill-health will lead to the hay fever being eradicated completely and better health overall.

Laser Surgery
Laser surgery is used to vaporise the mucus membranes of the nose to inhibit the symptoms of hay fever. Care has to be taken to prevent burning of the nasal tissue. Success is variable and re-vaporisation is often needed as symptoms will often return over time.

Homeopathy and Hay Fever Research
Numerous studies have shown that homeopathy should be the treatment of choice for allergies. They consistently show that homeopathic treatment alleviates the symptoms of hay fever and other hypersensitivity disorders without dangerous side-effects – and improves quality of life. A sampling of these studies have been placed in the Research section of the website.

Treating Hay Fever with Homeopathy
Treating yourself with homoeopathy during an acute phase of hay fever is easy as long as you know the remedy that matches your symptoms. Relief is usually rapid and all remedies are safe for use with babies through to the elderly when used according to instructions. Do be aware that self-treatment does have its limits though. You won’t be able to prescribe deeply enough to deal with the underlying chronic imbalance that allows your hay fever to recur. A qualified homeopath ( can treat this for you but it may require more than one visit. The bonus is that other health problems will improve along with your hay fever. 

To treat your acute hay fever yourself, look through the remedies listed below to see which one matches your symptoms – then just take it. The dosage is 1-4 x/day depending on severity of symptoms. If there is no improvement by 3-4 doses just reassess your symptoms and choose a different remedy that matches your symptoms more closely.

Alternately, an appointment can be made with a homeopath who will assess your symptoms in full and make a constitutional prescription to help you get on top of the problem once and for all. A constitutional remedy from a qualified homeopath removes the underlying cause of your hay fever and so will stop it recurring year after year.

The following are some of the common remedies homeopaths use in the treatment of hay fever.

Arsenicum album (Ars.)
This is one of the best remedies for hay fever.  Burning or itching in the nose, eyes or throat being a strong indication.  The discharges from both eyes and nose will be burning (but check to make sure that Allium cepa or Euphrasia are not better indicated – Euphrasia has the opposite symptoms). An improvement of the symptoms in the open air, although sensitive to light, is usually an indication for this remedy.

Euphrasia (Euphr.)
A classic remedy for hay fever where, again, there is lots of sneezing with streaming eyes and nose.  If the water from the eyes burns the cheeks and the discharge from the nose is not too bad, this remedy is needed.  (Allium cepa has the opposite symptoms). The remedy is indicated if the symptoms improve in the open air – obviously away from pollen.  Sensitivity to light may be apparent in both Euphrasia and Allium cepa.

Natrum muriaticum (Nat-m.)
Initially, there is a streaming, bland discharge from both the eyes and nose with lots of sneezing.  Later, there is nasal discharge that is thick and clear like the white of an egg with loss of taste and smell.  This is not one of the main remedies for hay fever but it can bring great relief to the type who gets easily burned, feel generally miserable, uncomfortable, blotchy and irritated in the sun.

Nux vomica (Nux-v.)
This is one of the best remedies for when there is lots of sneezing, streaming from the eyes and nose, and an irritable, nasty mood.  (If they are sweet tempered, it is unlikely to help.) The symptoms are worse in dry air and relieved when the atmosphere is damp.

Pulsatilla pratensis (Puls.)
The main indications for this remedy are a weepy, needy, state of mind, together with discharges that are thick, bland (not acrid) and green or yellow.  Pulsatilla frequently has one side of the nose blocked or congested.

Sulphur (Sulph.)
Watery, burning nasal discharge, or a blocked nose, when outside. Frequent sneezing. Blocking of nose on alternate sides. Burning pain in eyes. Symptoms worsened by warmth and becoming warm in bed. Better for being in open air. May be lazy, opinionated, and desire sweets, alcohol, and spicy food.

Wyethia helenoides (Wye)
Tremendous itching of the upper palate of the mouth causing the person to make “clucking” noises in effort to provide some relief. Itching of the nose and throat, along with a constant desire to swallow saliva to relieve the dryness may also be present.

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Defending Homeopathy

Defending Homeopathy
By Alan V. Schmukler

The other day I was reading about hospitals in Europe which use homeopathy. At the General Hospital in Klagenfurt, Austria, children with cancer are treated with homeopathy along with conventional medicine. (1) At another hospital in Austria, (KA Rudolfstiftung), homeopathy is used with newborns in the delivery room and intensive care units. (2) Children with profound mental impairment receive homeopathic care in the Rzadkowo Welfare Centre in Poland. (3) In a study atVinnitsa Medical University (Ukraine), atrial fibrillation was successfully treatedusing homeopathy (4) The wife of a friend recently underwent drastic surgery for
this same problem. Finally, there was the heartening research of Dr. Nikolaus Hock in Munchen Germany, using homeopathy to treat depression. He presented two cases of people suffering from depression who got no relief from drugs in over two years. They were each cured in five weeks with homeopathic remedies (Aurum muriaticum and Alumina). (5)

In light of all this, and homeopathy’s massive accomplishments, it seems absurd that homeopathy is still being attacked by the allopathic (orthodox) establishment. If facts could convince our critics, the debate would have ended long ago. We have two hundred years of well documented clinical successes and scores of rigorous studies. We also have the fact that thousands of board certified physicians practice homeopathy privately and in hospitals and clinics around the world. That should be enough. When homeopathy is attacked, the homeopathic community defends by analyzing the critics’ arguments and quoting more studies. Such responses are important and admirable as far as they go, but homeopathy keeps finding itself on the defensive, so we need an additional approach.

There is an old saying, "A way of knowing is a way of not knowing." Our detractors "know" that highly diluted substances can’t affect physiology; therefore, they "know" that homeopathy can’t possibly work. It is a belief, much like a religious conviction, programmed by their training and reinforced by years of propaganda. It is not that people can’t learn from new information, but rather that they avoid information which contradicts their beliefs. There is sufficient data supporting homeopathy to convince anyone willing to look at it. The critics of homeopathy simply ignore the facts, while repeating their mantra about high dilutions.
Last year The Lancet medical journal described homeopathic remedies as no better than "dummy drugs" (6) and recently, thirteen eminent clinical scientists in Britain described homeopathy as "implausible" and urged the National Health Service to stop wasting money on it. (7)

These "scientists" are on shaky ground for several reasons. Firstly, they are not qualified to engage in this discussion. Imagine if the BBC article had stated, "Thirteen eminent clinical scientists, who never studied homeopathy, had no indepth knowledge of it, and never tried the remedies personally nor professionally,
described homeopathy as implausible." That would be ludicrous. Since when are people, unschooled in a subject, allowed to become authorities on it?

The opponents of homeopathy can’t accept the idea of high dilutions and believe this aspect of homeopathy pre-empts all argument. However, that issue was put to rest long ago. There are numerous studies which demonstrate the effects of high dilutions. They've been duplicated in other labs and were done under circumstances where placebo effects were not a factor; for example: high potencies of thymulin were shown to depress immune response in mice (8), Potentized cyanide of mercury, protected mice from toxic doses of that substance. (9) High dilutions of thyroxin altered the rate at which larvae changed into tadpoles (10), and potentized Ruta Graveolens and Ginseng protected mice from sub-lethal doses of X-rays. (11)

How do we change our opponents’ beliefs? First, we must demand that they educate themselves as a condition of debate. What expert would debate his field with a novice? But that is what we are being asked to do. If we embarrass them into becoming knowledgeable, our critics may succumb to the fate of Dr.
Constantine Hering, the father of American homeopathy, who became a convert to homeopathy in the cause of debunking it.
Secondly, we must insist that they actually try the remedies, because at the end of the day, we learn with our bodies. The world is divided into the “haves” and “have nots”, those who have tried homeopathy and those who have not. Those who have tried it--the 500 million people in the world who use homeopathy--know that it works. They didn’t decide that based on years of research. The people who disparage homeopathy, have no personal experience with it.

Aside from their lack of knowledge and experience, allopaths who attack homeopathy are on shaky ground for other reasons. They often challenge our research, but their own is totally compromised. Drug company money taints every step of the process. Pharma funds most of the research, controls the design of trials, directs the interpretation of findings and pays authors (often ghost authors) to write positive reviews in medical journals. (12) Not surprisingly, studies have shown that drug company-sponsored research almost always finds positive results for their drugs. (13)

What’s more, the drug companies control what results get published, depending on whether they are favorable or not. The control extends all the way to intimidation of researchers. Not long ago a Canadian researcher was threatened with legal action by a drug company when she tried to publish negative findings on one of their drugs. (14)

Federal oversight and research is no better. The watchdog agency which should protect us, the FDA, routinely permits researchers connected with Pharma to sit on drug approval committees. Almost one-third of the FDA advisory committee which recommended that Vioxx remain on the market, had financial ties to the drug industry (15). Dr. Paul Rosch reported that 94% of the research scientists at NIH were receiving money from drug companies. (16)

The result of all this compromised research is the release of drugs onto the market which are often ineffective or cause unspeakable harm. The medical journals themselves receive vast advertising revenue from the
pharmaceutical industry. Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, described the relationship between drug companies and medical journals as "...somewhere between symbiotic and parasitic." (17)

No one is watching the store, not even your doctor. You expect your physician to make sound judgments on your behalf; but, to hawk their wares, the pharmaceutical companies spend about $7,000 per doctor per year in the U.S (some get much more). Doctors are gifted everything from sports tickets to expensive meals and trips (18) . Doctors are also paid betwen $1,000 and $5,000 for each patient they enroll in a drug company triaI. (19) Studies show that all these gifts influence doctors' prescribing patterns. (20) I was recently in a doctor’s office where drug logos embellished the clock, the calendar, the pens and writing
pads, the floor mat and even the coffee cup.

Our adversaries say that homeopathy is just placebo and that it doesn’t work. We could quote more studies on homeopathy, or we could put their own medicines under the spotlight. In 2003, the vice president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline cited figures showing that most drugs are ineffective for 50-80 percent of the people who use them. In other words, most drugs don’t work for most people. Drugs for Alzheimers and cancer were least effective, useful in only 30% of cases. (21) Aside from whether they relieve symptoms, these drugs can make little claim of curing any chronic disease. Whose drugs don’t work?

Let us also remind our critics of their own safety record. A study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that conventional drugs kill about 106,000 Americans a year, and this figure is limited to patients that die in the hospital, so the actual figure is unquestionably much higher. That makes prescription drugs the fourth leading cause of death in the United States (after heart attack, cancer and stroke). (22) Just one single drug, Vioxx, killed more Americans than the Vietnam War. That comes from the sworn testimony of Dr. David Graham, a senior scientist at the FDA. (23)

The toll in suffering and death from allopathic drugs is beyond description. Samuel Hahnemann (homeopathy’s founder) said it best, "This non-healing art has for centuries shortened the lives of ten times as many human beings as the most destructive wars and rendered many millions of patients more diseased and wretched than they were originally."(24)

Next time homeopathy is attacked, let us remove our opponents' righteousness by exposing what they are offering and demanding informed debate. They offer a medical system which uses tainted research, drugs that are not curative, don’t work for most people and are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States.

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) Abstracts of the 60th Congress of the Liga Medicorum
Homeopathica Internationalis : 8/grouping/5055
(6) BBC - Homeopathy's Benefit Questioned
(7) The Guardian-May 24, 2006 - A Clash of Cultures,,1781756,00.html
(8) Evaluation de la dose limite d'activite du Facteur Thymique Serique - Doucet-
Jaboef M, et al. C.R. Acad.Sci. 295:III
(9) Influence de l'administration de dilutions infinitesimiles de mercurius corrosivus
sur la mortalite induite par le chlorure mercurique chez la souris. Cambar J, et al.
(1983) Bull. Soc. Pharmacol. Bordeaux 122: 30-38.
(10) The metamorphosis of amphibians and information of thyroxin storage via the
bipolar fluid water and on a technical data carrier; transference via an electronic
amplifier. Endler PC et al. Fundamental Research in Ultra High Dilution and
Homeopathy. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1998: p.155.
(11) Assessment of Cytogenetic Damage in X-irradiated mice mice and its alteration
by oral administration of potentized homeopathic drug, Ginseng D200.
Berlin J. Res. homeopathy (4/5):254.
(12 ) Conflict of Interest in Clinical Drug Trials -Dr. Thomas Bodenheimer
(13) Ibid.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Pharma Industry News Article Date: 26 Feb 2005 - 23:00 PST
(16) Big Pharma and the Ties That Bind: The Politics of Drug Promotion
(17) Ibid.
(18) Stephen Cha, "These Gifts are Bad for Our Health", Washington Post, Sunday,
July 24, 2005; Page B02
(19) see (12)
(20) Prescribing Under the Influence scribing.html
(21) Alliance for Human Research Protection
(22) Journal of the American Medical Association 4/15/98.
(23) Testimony of Dr David Graham at Senate Finance Comittee Hearings 11804dgtest.pdf
(24) Hahnemann, Samuel. Organon of Medicine. 5th and 6th Edition,
Trans.Dudgeon. India: B. Jain Pub.

Homeopath Bashing

Homeopath bashing

As many of you might be aware, homeopathy has been in the media a great deal lately, and has been the object of hot debate and sometimes vociferous condemnation. The basic argument of homeopathy skeptics is homeopathy can't possibly work therefore  it doesn't. The skeptics say that homeopathy is no more than placebo and that all homeopaths are 'quacks'! The fact is that there is plenty of positive evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of homeopathy across a broad range of conditions.

In order for the placebo response to work, one needs to be aware that one is taking something. Therefore if homeopathy is no more than placebo, it would follow that it would not be effective in animals and babies. Yet homeopathy has shown extremely good results in treating both animals and babies, who, one could reasonably say, do not even know that they are being treated with a homeopathic medicine.

I refer you to one stunning animal trial in particular where a diary farmer instigated a trial with homeopathy in his herd of cows that were suffering ongoing problems with mastitis. The herd was separated into two equal sized groups (41 cows in each). One group was given the homeopathic remedy, and the control group was given a placebo medicine. The farmer who administered the homeopathic medicine and the placebo did not know which was which - i.e. the trial was  'blind'. The results were very strongly in favour of homeopathy with only one recorded case of mastitis in the group treated with homeopathy, whilst there were 19 cases in the placebo group.

You can click here if you want to know more about this trial.
There are many other homeopathic trials with animals that indicate homeopathy is much superior to placebo effect - here are a few:
Still birth in pigs - click here
Kennel cough in dogs - click here
Birth difficulty in cattle - click here

If you want to read more about all the evidence and clinical trails of homeopathy (done on humans!)I refer you to my website - click on the 'evidence' tab.

Be well, Nick