Role of homeopathy in the treatment of depression.Read More
“Homeopathy is not science”
There are critics who claim that homeopathy is ‘pseudoscience’ and only non-scientists are interested in the subject.
In fact, scientists in highly respected universities, research institutions and hospitals around the world are carrying out research into homeopathy using the same research techniques as those used to investigate conventional medical treatments.
Homeopathy research is a relatively new field, but the number of articles published in peer reviewed journals has risen significantly over the past 40 years.
This lag behind conventional medicine is hardly surprising when one considers the lack of funding available e.g. in the UK less than 0.0085% of the medical research budget is spent on research into complementary and alternative medicines.1
International Research Conferences
The inaugural HRI International Homeopathy Research Conference was held in Barcelona in June 2013. The programmed included presentations by 5 Professors and 40 doctors (PhDs or medics) from over 20 countries, covering clinical, experimental and veterinary research. Abstracts, filmed presentations and the conference report can be viewed here.
The 2nd HRI International Research Conference, held in Rome on 5-7 June 2015, continued the ongoing theme of Cutting Edge Research. The programme included presentations on clinical, fundamental and basic research, by 6 Professors and 28 doctors (PhDs or medics) from 17 countries. The abstracts, filmed presentations and conference report can be viewed here.
So in what way is homeopathy ‘unscientific’?
Well-qualified scientists in respected institutions are now carrying out high quality basic research, clinical research and veterinary research in homeopathy, and are reporting positive results which are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Therefore the only basis for the argument that it is ‘pseudoscience’ is that we do not know how homeopathy works.
Usually, when a phenomenon is observed which cannot be explained by what ‘science’ already knows, this triggers fresh scientific enquiry – it is not dismissed as ‘unscientific’ purely because it has yet to be understood.
Homeopathic Medical history than is longer than other licenced medicines. Lyssin is a safer choice. Part B
Homeopathy has been used before conventional medicines ever existed (in the 1700’s) while some of these ‘medicines’ are much more new as is the whole North American Medical Industry as we know it (1900’s) (See reference to Theodore Roosevelt https://www.griffinbenefits.com/employeebenefitsblog/history_of_healthcare. And Saskatchewan https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-birth-of-medicare
You think Rabid Dog Saliva (Lyssinum is one made with on drop of the saliva of a rabid dog preserved in alcohol medicine) is weird…
In our NEW predominant medical system there are so many things that are going on that are sooo much more weird (and way more NEW/experimental). Here are some fun (gross) examples:
1. How about the mouse virus injected as part of chemotherapy that goes on everyday times millions of people. YES millions of people in hospitals are injected with an experimental version of chemotherapy that includes first injecting Rituximab which is a virus made in mice or rats…
2. How about Belladonna and Opium (still used) http://www.businessinsider.com/yes-bayer-promoted-heroin-for-children-here-are-the-ads-that-prove-it-2011-11#bayers-heroina-for-irritation-and-bronchitis-1. Opium was a common cough suppressant not too long ago and is still used in many various forms in hospitals every day.
3. ACE inhibitors (a common blood pressure medicine) such as captopril were based on an ingredient of the venom of the poisonous Brazilian Viper (Bothrops Jararaca) ehem do I hear snake oil coming to mind now? Yet these ‘discoveries’ … (remember which modalities are older and more well used with history of success)
This list really could go on and on and on. I’ve read soooo much about this because the fact that homeopathy was developed in reaction to how harmfully archaic practices of bloodletting and so on were in the beginning days of homeopathy when everyone should’ve just learned from the best (homeopaths) instead of trying to degrade their practices with misinformation.
About 70-80% of patients taking homeopathic treatment for chronic disease report improvement, and in at least one study they prefer it over conventional treatment, according to a collection of studies written up by our friends down under, Homeopathy Plus.
Possibly you are aware of the six-year Bristol Homeopathic Hospital study, which showed that out of 6,544 patients with chronic disease, sometimes of many years’ duration, 70.7 per cent reported positive health changes.
But there’s more.
A study on several alternative health modalities in Northern Ireland shows homeopathy narrowly edging out acupuncture with 79 per cent of patients reporting positive outcomes.
A study carried out at a health clinic in Dorset, England shows 84 per cent of patients reported improvement, and 81 per cent attribute their improvement to homeopathy.
A German study found that most parents with cancer-stricken kids who had them treated homeopathically rated their satisfaction rate as “very high” and would recommend homeopathy to other parents.
A large-scale Swiss study comparing patient satisfaction with homeopathic treatment to conventional medicine for chronic disease showed homeopathy scoring significantly better, with greater improvement and fewer side effects.
Finally, a 103-centre study in Switzerland and Germany followed 3,079 patients over eight years, and found:
* On average, disease severity decreased dramatically and improvements were sustained
* Three in ten patients stopped treatment because of major improvement
* Mental and physical quality of life scores increased substantially
* Biggest and fastest improvements happened for children and the patients who started out the most sick.
Conditions treated ran the gamut, covering both physical and emotional afflictions.
Those who wonder why homeopathy continues to grow in popularity worldwide despite a mechanism of action that defies common “wisdom” and a well-funded and highly-motivated opposition should take note of these studies.
Read the original article, which has more details and full citations, here.
Pediatric vaccines have been considered controversial due to potential negative effects on development, particularly impaired social interaction and communication, hyperactivity, and repetitive stereotyped behaviors that are characteristic of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Some reports suggest that exposure to ethyl mercury (EtHg), in the form of thimerosal, in pediatric vaccines may play a causative role in such negative effects. Male infant rhesus macaques (n = 79) were assigned at birth to one of six study groups (12–16 subjects/group) as follows: (1) the pediatric vaccination schedule from the 1990s including thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs), (2) the same 1990s schedule but accelerated to accommodate the developmental trajectory of the infant rhesus macaque, (3) TCVs only (saline placebo for Mumps–Measles–Rubella [MMR]), (4) MMR only (other injections replaced with saline placebo), (5) the expanded vaccine regimen from 2008 (where fewer vaccines contained thimerosal), or (6) a control group following the 1990s schedule with all vaccines replaced with saline placebo. Subjects began socializing at approximately 25 days of age and were socialized 5 days per week in a 4-monkey peer group. Social behavior data, collected between 15 and 18 months of age using a computer system capturing a variety of social and non-social behaviors, were included in this analysis. Data were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVAs with Dunnett’s test post-hoc procedures following significant experimental group or group × age interactions. No significant differences in non-social or social behavior were found when comparing the animals in the vaccine groups to controls. The data do not provide any evidence of abnormal social behavior in rhesus macaques exposed to low-dose thimerosal and should provide reassurance that TCVs do not contribute to the negative effects associated with ASD. Support from the Johnson Family, the Ted Lindsay Foundation, and SafeMinds is gratefully acknowledged.
Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Ottawa has approved 8,500 homeopathic products, including remedy made from rabid dog saliva
Bethany Lindsay · CBC News · Posted: Apr 18, 2018 4:00 AM PT | Last Updated: April 18
More than 8,500 homeopathic treatments are approved by Health Canada. (Josh Reynolds/Associated Press)
The long list of so-called homeopathic nosodes approved by Health Canada include remedies made from the bacteria that causes chlamydia, the cerebral fluid of meningitis patients and cancer cells — to name just a few.
After B.C.'s senior physician questioned the federal approval of one of these remedies, a substance developed from the saliva of a rabid dog, Health Canada will only say that it takes the safety of health products "very seriously."
- B.C. health official voices 'grave concerns' after child given homeopathic remedy using rabid-dog saliva
A Health Canada spokesperson said no one was available Tuesday for an interview about the remedy used by a Victoria naturopath to treat a small boy's behaviour problems, but offered a written statement instead.
"Homeopathic products ... are regulated as natural health products (NHPs) under the Natural Health Products Regulations," the statement reads.
"Health Canada takes the safety of health products on the Canadian market very seriously. Should a product not meet the requirements set out in the associated product monograph and guidance, Health Canada will take action."
The homeopathic remedy, which is marketed as lyssinum, lyssin or hydrophobinum, is one of more than 8,500 homeopathic products regulated by the federal government.
Includes worldwide 'visual testimonials'! A much anticipated release.
People who have used homeopathy have a lot of positive and dramatic stuff to say about it!
Is 'big pharma' trying to eliminate homeopathy as a choice available to people?
Look deeply into where the offense is coming from and think critically (as real skeptics/scientist do).