Can piglets tell lies?

Millions of homeopathic patients know how effective homeopathy is because it worked for them. I am one of them. But denialists deny this evidence before their eyes. It is just placebo. It is anecdotal. It is unscientific. They can't explain how homeopathy works (their problem), so it does not work.

So what happens when 500 piglets benefit from homeopathy? Are they telling porkies? Have they been subject to the power of the placebo effect? The issue under research was e-coli diarrhoea, apparently a major problem for pig farmers. This randomised, double-blind trial (beloved of denialists) showed quite clear results. The farmer, on whose farm the research was conducted, was skeptical at first, but after the trial, he (like a growing band of farmers) is now embracing homeopathy for all his animals. So homeopathy marches on! There is a rather a long URL for this research - but you can find it by clicking here.

The study showed a significant reduction in E Coli diarrhoea, with the control group having over 6 times more diarrhoea that the homeopathy group. So not only homeopathy provide effective treatment of a major problem, the treatment is safe, and less expensive than conventional treatment.

Placebo in homeopathy no larger than in ConMed

Nuhn et al (2010) have found that the placebo effect in homeopathy is not larger than in conventional medicine when comparing classical homeopathy to conventional medicine. The lengthy case-taking process and empathy shown by the practitioner does not account for an increased placebo effect (as is claimed by critics of homeopathy).

Nuhn T, Lüdtke R, Geraedts M (2010). Placebo effect sizes in homeopathic compared to conventional drugs – a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Homeopathy, 99: 76–82.

Let's see how quick the denialists tell us that this research is no good!
See also http://homeopathicnew.wordpress.com

Homeopathy and breast cancer cells

An important paper on homeopathy and cancer appeared in the February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology. Scientists at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDA), led by Dr. Moshe Frenkel, have demonstrated the beneficial effects of homeopathic medicines on breast cancer cells. Four ultra-dilute remedies were used in the study - Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja.

According to the researchers: "The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis".

Dr. Frenkel has stated: "This is the first scientific study that investigated the effect of homeopathic remedies on breast cancer cells", and referred to an "exciting possibility" of the "therapeutic opportunity for preferentially eliminating breast cancer cells with minimal damage to the surrounding normal mammary tissue by using homeopathic remedies."

For homeopathy, under attack from pro-ConMed denialists as they are, the paper is important as it shows that ultra-dilute products do have significant physical effects even when the dilution is outside Avogadro's Limit  - that is, when none of the original substance is present. Further it shows that the homeopathic remedies used in the study (and much used in the treatment of people with cancer) can have an effect on cancer cells, equivalent to that of the major chemo-drug used as a control, Paclitaxel (Taxol).

The main difference, of course, is the the homeopathic remedy will have no adverse effect on normal cells.


For further details, see the following:

http://homeopathy.suite101.com/article.cfm/homeopathy-and-breast-cancer#ixzz0iuudPqxj

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/content/view/414/2/lang,english/

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/news-and-press/news/beneficial-effect-of-homeopathic-medicines-on-breast-cancer-cells

What is the safest, most effective ConMed drug?

"Antibiotics" - I hear many of you say.

Well, read Dana Ullman's blog, "Do antibiotics make people fat?".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/do-antibiotics-make-peopl_b_491808.html

Dana's blog is full of research evidence on the impact of antibiotics. And it does not leave the reader without an alternative. Moreover, his argument for homeopathy is, as always, well referenced.

I urge everyone who is interested in safe medicine to read it.

Homeopathy. Amazing events in Cuba

Amazing things happen when homeopathy is used to treat disease! And yet, such is the block placed on 'good' health news by mainstream media organisations, the general public never get to hear about it. Just imagine the furore if recent events in Cuba were the result of a new, miracle conventional drug!

* In Cuba, every year, 100s of 1000s contract Leptospirosis, an infectious disease transmitted mainly by rats in flooded areas. In bad cases, it can cause kidney damage, meningitis, liver failure, and respiratory disease. And each year, many Cubans die from the disease.
* Annually, ConMed vaccines cost Cuba about US$3,000,000 (a lot of money for a poor country), and this to vaccinate about 773,000 of the most 'at risk' people, who live in areas most subject to the devastation of seasonal hurricanes.
* In 2008, a homeopathic nosode, Leptospira 200c was given to about 2.4 million people, at a cost of US$200,000 - both a significant increase in coverage, and a significant decrease in cost.
* The epidemiology surveillance that followed showed a dramatic decrease in morbidity, well below the levels predicted following what had been an exceptionally bad hurricane year. And there were no deaths.

(For more details, see Homeopathy in Practice, Autumn 2009).

Given such amazing events, any rational person might have been expected to be excited, and the Media might have been expected to fall over themselves to bring us the news. Certainly any scientist worthy of the name might have been interested in looking into this further. And science journals might be expected to jump at the chance of publishing the statistics produced, and made available, by the Finlay Institute in Cuba. But no, none of this has happened.

The deafening silence that has ensued stands testiment to the power of the Big Pharma companies, their influence and control over national governments, and their control of mainstream media. The world of medical 'science', and the main scientific journals themselves, have said little or nothing. Not really a surprise, I suppose, as they were 'bought' long ago by Big Pharma money.

The fact that a simple, cheaply produced, easily administered homeopathic remedy can produce stunning results is brilliant news for our health. But it is certainly not good news for the vested interests of the ConMed world, which after all is relying increasingly on new, expensive vaccines to support its profits.

Patient Choice in the NHS

The NHS was established in 1947, committed to offer 'the best medicine available' to every UK citizen, regardless of income. Its main creator, Anauren Bevan, was a homeopathy user, so his intention would not have been to exclude homeopathy. Yet homeopathy is being excluded from the NHS in many parts of the country.

Marjorie Titchen is 92 years old. She lives in Bournemouth where she continues to run a small hotel. She says that she will retire when she is 100! This will mean that she has worked and paid taxes for over 80 years – and yet incredibly she is being refused medical treatment by her local PCT!

Marjorie suffers from osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, which she has controlled now for nearly 12 years with homeopathy. She has never taken a conventional drug, and refuses to do so. In April 2008, she applied for another course of homeopathy with her local homeopath, who has treated her, successfully, for many years. She says:

"I had expected to be in a wheelchair by now because of my osteoarthritis. I can do two or three hours work a day. I wouldn't be as mobile and as clear-minded if it hadn't been for the treatment my homeopath has been giving me for the last decade."


The Bournemouth /Poole Teaching Primary Care Trust refused to fund the treatment, even though they had done so on previous occasions. A spokesman for the PCT told the local newspaper (the Bournemouth Echo) in August 2008:

"The clinical evidence did not show that homeopathy treatment would continue to be an effective treatment for Mrs Titchen and we will not be continuing to support that treatment. This is not about a basic funding decision. We would expect Mrs Titchen's GP to reassess her condition and if necessary refer her to a hospital consultant, should that be appropriate."


The PCT has claimed that there is no evidence that homeopathy works with osteoarthritis.

This is not correct. Mrs Titchen herself is walking proof of homeopathy's efficacy. And in addition there is ample evidence that homeopathy helps in the treatment of osteoarthritis. For instance, Shealy C.N., Thomlinson P.R., Cox R.H., and Bormeyer V. Osteoarthritis Pain: A Comparison of Homoeopathy and Acetaminophen. American Journal of Pain Management, 8, 3, July 1998, 89-91, conducted an experiment with 65 sufferers of osteoarthritis who were split into 2 groups, and through a double blinding process were given either a homoeopathic medicine or Acetaminophen, a commonly prescribed drug for pain relief. Researchers found that homoeopathy provided a level of pain relief that was superior to Acetaminophen, and, perhaps equally important, produced no adverse reactions.

So what is happening here? Mrs Titchen wants homeopathy. Mrs Titchen’s GP supports her request. Her homeopath has treated her before, successfully, and is willing to do so again. She has benefited from homeopathy, and her MP has supported her request, but says he is powerless to do anything about it.

Yet the PCT has seen fit to make a purely bureaucratic decision to deny her the treatment of her choice. It appears that the PCT believes, in its paternalistic wisdom, that they know what is best for Mrs Titchen, and are prepared to ignore her request. The result is that Mrs Titchen has gone without treatment for two years.

This is contrary to the way the government wants health services to develop. Patricia Hewitt, Health Secretary at the time the White Paper, “Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a new direction for community services (January 2006)” was published, said this:

“(more) people (are) wanting a different approach to services, looking for real choices, more local care, taking greater control over their health, supported to remain independent wherever possible”.

Karin Mont, chair of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), says that the White Paper identified 5 key areas where change was required - all of which, she says, homeopathy is well-placed to deliver for the NHS. These are:
1) A greater emphasis on personalised care.
2) Bringing care closer to our home.
3) Gaining greater cooperation between local councils and the NHS.
4) More patient choice.
5) Initiatives to prevent the development of disease.

Mrs Titchen’s dilemma is not unusual. The number of people wanting to use homeopathy, in preference to conventional medication, has been growing for many decades - mostly by patients paying privately for treatment. Many more people, who cannot afford to do this, are routinely denied access to homeopathy by the NHS.

Yet all the main political parties are now proposing to develop a ‘choice’ agenda within the NHS. Yet, with a general election in prospect, the choice on offer in the NHS does not seem to go beyond the conventional medical monopoly.

What this means, for people like Mrs Titchen, is that the NHS is denying real health choice to those who prefer to use homeopathy, or other CAM therapies, to treat their illnesses.

Homeopathy. The Guardian is wrong yet again.

Martin Robbins in the Guardian'Science Blog' (5th February 2010) seeks to malign and misrepresents the British Homeopathic Association’s submission to the Commons Science & Technology Committee. It is a shame that this formerly magnificent liberal paper publishes such things without any attempt at fairness and balance - but its anti-homeopathy stance is well-known, and apparently without boundaries.

The BHA has refuted the allegations, in a full and reasoned response. It seems too much for the Guardian to give its readers access to this (perhaps one reason it is losing them fast) - so have a look for yourself at:

http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/media_centre/news/bha_did_not_misrepresent_evidence.html

The lesson patients need to understand this is that it is difficult for homeopaths to engage in debate in the mainstream media when important media outlets, like the Guardian, publish only one side of the health debate about safe and effective medicine.