hoeopathy is hit and trial with mostly misses _{Page 3 of 4}

I have just read john34’s from yesterday. Actually, I do know something about eczema, having had it for many years since childhood. There is one thing about eczema. It does tend to go away on its own. You tried several different treatments. What would have happened if it had gone away during one of those treatments?

You also mention you had an asthma attack which you say is due to your homeopathic treatment working. This I think is very funny. You take a homeopathic treatment. If the condition gets better, that is due to the treatment working. If it gets worse that again is due to the treatment working. If nothing happens, either more time is needed (look up the self confidence thread going on now in this forum) or the treatment can be changed. Have I made an error in my logic?

Dear John34

I'd be cautious if homeopathic treatment for eczema results in asthmatic attack. Treatment for asthma may bringout eczema(centre to periphery) not the other way around.

Dear Robot,

You mentioned the self confidence thread.I presume that started by biswajit.Now, i have reported your mentioning that thread on this thread as being irrelevant to this thread to the moderator.

The reason is as follows.Your total lack of understanding of things homeopathic is causing you to make some grave mistakes.First of all you say that nothing happened upon the prescription of the suggested remedy.If people read the last few posts of the patient on that thread, you would see that the patient admitted that his ned to wear socks in bed decreased, his smelly and sweaty feet symptom improved, he is experiencing less anger and his nightmares are better.All this with one dose and in less than a month (a very short time for homeopathic treatment of chronic diseases).These are the facts which i have placed only for the benefit of Simon, the moderator.So that, he may decide whether to issue a second warning for talking irrelevantly or to ban you.

Another thing is that you tend to escape making general statements.Now, i invite you to a formal point by point rebuttal of the papers referenced by the moderator earlier on this thread.

One of the arguments in favour of homeopathy and against the placebo effect argument made by the author of first of those papers was that homeopathy works even with animals.In case of animals, placebo effect cannot explain this phenomenon as they are not intelligent or suggestible enough.Animals do not even realise that they are being given a remedy especially when it is mixed in their food or water without their knowledge or even behind their back.

How do you counter the above argument?I would like the moderator too to be involved and closely scrutinize the reply of this smart gentleman.If he makes irrelevant replies, a suitable action in the best interests of this forum may be taken.

Rajiv

Dear Simon,

I request you to read my post above and also reply to my reporting of Mr. robot for bringing irrelevant things or issues to this thread.

To my mind, scepticism is fine but it should be based on sound arguments. Loose or arrogant arguments are certainly not beneficial for the ambience of this forum.They just waste everyone's time and energy.This is especially relevant after the mini war that ended here on this forum recently between fellow homeopaths.

Rajiv

I recall an editorial where the author made a comment I found very intriguing. He pointed out that in one sense homeopathy and allopathy work in exactly the same way! In both cases, the person's natural defense system seeks to fight the medicine. The critical difference, however, is the following.

In homeopathy, the medicine is an artificial disease which mimics the actual disease. In fighting the artificial disease, the weaker underlying actual disease is also addressed and the person is cured.

In contrast, the allopathic medicine seeks to suppress the problem. Since the person has not been cured, then over time, if the person’s natural defenses are still functioning, the allopathic medicine must be given in increasingly stronger doses. Which also means continued and stronger side effects.

Meehru-

I discussed the issue with my homeopath (the asthma attack). It a lasted only two nights and has never come back. My doc believes it was the remedy working deeply to bring an old issue back and heal it. When I was a young child, it happened quite a bit. Considering how much better I feel these days, I think my doc is correct, this is part of the healing process.

John

Dear John

If this was the case(Suppression coming out)no problem. All the best for your speedy recovery.

The following article BY GEOERGE VITHOULKAS may be of some help to reveal us the requirement of different research approach in case of Homeopathy , as the principles of Homeopathic therapeutics are altogether different from that of conventional medicine & all the reasearches in case of homeopathy has been conducted putting these medicines as something comparable to Allopathic medicines.






The already published research on homeopathy in the last ten years, in its majority, has followed wrong lines and therefore is causing and will continue to cause confusion and uncertainties within the medical profession. The problem was created from peer-reviewers who obviously were not eligible to peer review such a new subject.

Yet, homeopathy is growing in the preferences of the patients. Therefore, research should be the first step in a series of decisions, for putting an order to the anarchistic way that this therapeutic modality is developing at the moment. If the medical community wants to see the real effect and also the limits of homeopathy should aim in having good research. If this crucial problem is not understood and solved, mainly by the prestigious medical journals, then homeopathy will continue to expand unbelievably but haphazardly while the medical profession will pretend that such a thing does not exist.

Most of the papers published on homeopathic trials till today are confused and confusing. In homeopathy, there is no such thing as giving a remedy for a specific ailment or disease. The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology. If such papers continue to be published then the real homeopathic community, the practitioners who apply homeopathy in everyday practice will never accept this type of research.

Therefore I believe, the following comments will help to clarify a lot of issues that are causing and will continue to cause confusing remarks concerning the efficacy of homeopathy.

Out of six homeopathic meta--analysis 1-6 published in medical journals four 1-4 were somewhat positive and two 5-6 negative, compared with placebo, but all of them wrongly conceived and inaccurately evaluated from the aspect of homeopathy.

The latest fashion of meta-analysis applied to homeopathic trials is coming to a climax, but from a homeopathic point of view without guiding lines, and without the possibility of reaching ever a final and definite conclusion concerning the effectiveness of homeopathy. I would like to show why such meta-analyses will prove to be useless, unreliable and misleading, whether the outcome be positive or negative, if it continues to take in to account the kind of trials existing till this day.

The main pillar of meta-analysis is that it should be based on reliable trials. Are the bulk of the trials reviewed in these meta-analyses reliable?

The answer is a clear 'no' 1-10. My objection is that all these trials were not structured according to the well established principles of homeopathy.

Homeopathy demands individualisation of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. But in almost all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored.

I will take as an example the Lancet paper Klaus Linde . I will only comment on two trials within this meta-analysis, though all of the papers included will not withstand any serious scrutiny from the homeopathic point of view:

1. The Shipley, Jenkins et al, trial 11 that was the most negative for homeopathy:

Rhus-tox D6 was tested in osteoarthritis and found to have no effect.

Rhus -tox. as every homeopath knows is almost never indicated in osteoarthritis cases (is useful perhaps in some cases of fibrositis or in rheumatic complains). Other remedies like the Causticum, the Kali salts the Calcarea salts or the Natrum salts could have been tried for this pathology under a specific protocol, but never the Rhus-tox.

This research was similar to testing antibiotics in. . . anxiety neurosis and finding that they do not work, we arrived at the conclusion that all conventional medicine is useless. I consider this paper the worst type of homeopathic trials, though many others in the same meta-analysis have similar problems.

2. On the Hariveau, et al trial 12 that was the most positive for homeopathy:

The remedy Cuprum were tested and found very effective in reducing cramps.

Though Cuprum is effective in some cases for cramps, yet is not as effective as this trial tried to show. Mossinger's similar trials 13 that did not show such a dramatic effect confirm this point of mine.

The bulk of the rest of the trials in this meta-analysis have very little to do with testing the effectiveness of homeopathy. They were conceived according to conventional way of thinking (a remedy for a specific disease) This is not homeopathy as I explained above. The only conclusion one could draw from these trials is that highly diluted substances can still have an effect upon the human organism.

Therefore, the homeopathic community should not accept research that does not comply and does not respect the homeopathic principles.

Which are these principles:

1. That homeopathy does not treat diseases, but only diseased individuals. Therefore every case may need a different remedy though suffering with the same pathology. This rule was violated by almost all trials in all the meta-analysis, even in those trials that were coined as classical. An exception was the trials that attempted to be closer to the idea of the homeopathic principles as well. P. Fisher et al 14 Jacobs et al 15 and Schwab 16. These trials showed excellent results in spite of the fact they did not follow a process of complete individualisation of the cases.
2. There is usually an initial aggravation after the first prescription, especially in chronic cases that should be considered as a positive sign. That factor has been totally ignored. Also that sufficient time should be given in the design of the trial, in order to overcome the aggravation period.
In a recent study published in Cephalalgia 17 the aggravation period was evaluated as a negative sign and the homeopathic group was pronounced worse than the placebo. Cephalalgia refused to publish my objections to the study. 18
3. In severe chronic conditions the homeopath may need to prescribe a second or a third remedy before any sign of improvement is apparent. Such prescription should take place only after evaluating the results by the previous remedy. This rule has also been ignored in all studies.
4. Research should take in to consideration the length of time and the severity of the case. The prognosis of a chronic condition (the possible time after which an amelioration sets in through homeopathic treatment) differs according to the length of time the disease is active and the severity of the case.


In concluding these remarks allow me to suggest:

a. All the above parameters for homeopathy should have been discussed with expert homeopaths before researchers undertake to design homeopathic trials, and Medical Journals should provide more knowledgeable peer-reviewers for clinical trials on homeopathy.

b. There is a need for at least one standardized protocol for clinical trials that will respect both: the double blind parameters but also some of the homeopathic principles. Only then such trials could be acceptable by both the homeopathic and the conventional medicine. With some of my colleagues we are in the final stage of completing such a protocol.

References

1. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834-43.
2. Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP, for the HMRAG group. Evidence of Clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27.
3. Barnes J, Resch KL, Ernst E. Homeopathy for post operative ileus? A meta - analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 1997 Dec; 25 (4): 628-33.
4. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of Homeopathy. BMJ 1991 Feb 9; 302(6772):316-23.
5. Scheen A, Lefebvre P. Is homeopathy superior to placebo?Controversy apropo of a meta-analysis of controlled studies. Bull Mem Acad R Med Belg 1999; 154 (7-9); 295-304; discussion 304-7.
6. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo- controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999 July; 52(7):631-6
7. Vandenbroucke JP, Homeopathic trials :going nowhere. Lancet 1997; 350:824.
8. Langman MJS. Homeopathy trials: reasons for good ones but are they warranted ? Lancet 1997 350:825
9. Ernst E, Barnes J. Are homeopathic remedies effective for delayed onset muscle soreness? A systematic review of placebo-controlled trials. Perfusion 1998; 11: 4-8
10. Dean M. Out of step with the Lancet homeopathy meta-analysis: more objections than objectivity? J Altern Complement Med 1998 Winter; 4(4): 389-98.
11. Shipley M, Berry H, Broster G, Jenkins M, Clover A, Williams I. Controlled trial of homeopathic treatment of osteoarthritis Lancet;1983, i: 97-98.
12. Hariveauv, et al recherche clinique a L'Institut Boiron Homeopathie 1987;5:55-58.
13. Mossinger P. Misslungene Wirksamkeitsnachweise. Allg homopath Ztg 1976; 221: 26-31
14. Fisher P, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC et al. Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia). BMJ 1989; 299: 365-366
15. Jacobs J, Jiminez LM, Gloyds SS et al Homoeopathic treatment of acute childhood diarrhea: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Br Hom Journal 1993; 82: 83--86
16. Schwab G. Lsst sich eine Wirkung homopathischer Hochpotenzen nachweisen? Karlsruhe: Deutsche Homopathische Union; 1990.
17. Walach H, W. Haeusler T Lowes, D Mussbach, U Schamell, W Springer et al Classical Hom. Treatm. of Chronic Headaches Cephalalgia 1997;17: 119-26
18. Vithoulkas G. Unpublished Critical Review of Class. Hom. Treatm. of Chronic Headaches in Cephalagia Oct 1997 sent to Cephalalgia and their respond.

to Robot-

I finally noticed your comments directed at me. Frankly, your premise is a bit insulting, and your logic is off. If you read carefully how deep acting remedies such as lycopodium work, you will see that it is not surprising that old symptoms resurface. For me, it merely confirmed that I found my constitutional remedy. That is, my experience confirmed the theory underlying homeopathy. the fact that the symptom promply disappeared is further confirmation.

that you think my experience is 'funny' just shows that you have not really understood how homeopathy differs from alloapthic medicine. My eczema never really went away on its own, so, I can't relate to that. the odds of my eczema retreating of its own accord one week after trying the remedy, after 34 years? please, do you really think such a proposition is logical?

John

Meehru-

yes for years my allergies were suppressed with allopathic treatments of all sorts, so in this light, it really should not be surprising. Lycopodium has really acted on my quite dramatically. But, based on my reading, there are at least 2 miasms at present in my case, present since childhood. So, I expect my treatment to be complex, and last several years.

John

The usual argument is that people who benefit (as in confirmed cures, not those who never return, whom we cannot factor in as cured or failed) from homeopathy improve or are cured for the following reasons: 1. the effect of the conventional therapy previously used 2. natural remission 3. because they expect to be cured (never mind if they also expected to be cured when they tried other, failed therapies). 4. If children or animals experience amelioration, it’s because they want to please the caregiver (in which case, why not ‘please’ them by responding to ANY therapy?) 5. because they 'talked' to the homeopath and achieved psychological unburdening (in which case a psychotherapist would work as well). Each of these is justifiable to some extent, though what one would question is why these 'coincidental' cures occur so largely in conjunction with homeopathic treatment.
When two opposing parties are equally certain of their data, there is little either can do to convince the other. The impact of the argument is on the ‘undecideds’, and they must make their choice. We have seen plenty of people (as, I think Daisy and John said) who come to homeopathy as a last resort.
What I would like to ask ZepOz and robot and their tribe is that since their basic complaint against homeopathy (among complaints that we are rooking people for what is basically water) is that people who go for this “useless” so-called treatment are denied “real” medical help is WHAT IF? What if you are wrong and we are right (as of course we know we are) – and by your dedicated campaigns against homeopathy you are denying people the right to the best health they can achieve? I look forward to a time - I hope it will be in my lifetime - when people who call homeopathy ridiculous have to swallow their words - with homeopathic 'water'.

Robot,

Please do not apologise: You were the only one who has spotted the obvious error. And since it is the basis of the author's arguments (in both papers, incidentally), the rest just falls on its face. They appear to be just personal rants.

My qualifications: I have a genuine Bachelor of Science degree from a major world university, majoring in General Science, Biology, Geoology, and Information Systems. I have been involved in medical studies for over 10 years now. I am NOT a doctor, psychologist, or veterinarian nor do I ever claim to be one.

The 'What If' question: Ripas, you are quite correct - people should receive the very best health care available. And if homeopathy can measure up, it should be part of that armoury. I would have no objections whatsoever.

But there's a big stumbling block - there is no evidence available to confirm homeopathy's incredible claims. None, I'm afraid. When analysed, even with a favourable eye, the results for homeopathy patients so far, as presented by homeopaths themselves, are almost identical to results for people who simply waited for their illness to go away naturally. That sort of outcome does not encourage support for the modality in the scientific world, nor even in many intelligent patients.

Medicines in use today have all passed this sort of testing - they were proven to actually do something, make a difference, at least along the lines intended. If they did not pass any of these tests, they were dropped before they were even marketed. There have been many such failures on the way to the few successes, which is why medical research is so expensive.

However we live in hope for homeopathy. If it is as truly efficacious and cost-effective as claimed, perhaps the testing was just not rigorous enough, or it was badly designed so the results were masked, or something. So I repeat: It is high time that homeopaths got their act together, and designed and ran some good solid scientific testing on homeopathy that produces unambiguous results that will give a sound basis for its claims.

And it's obvious there's no shortage of the brainpower to do it either. So are there any takers here who will go for it and win the gratitude of their compatriots and the plaudits of the world? Please?

depends on what you are looking for in the way of evidence. Thankfully, a growing number of ordinary people can look beyond theoretical arguments, to the practical test, does it work? It did for me, as it has for countless others. Given society's growing frustration with the limits and shortcommings of allopathy, I think homeopathy will come along just fine.

cheers,
John

'people should receive the very best health care available. And if homeopathy can measure up, it should be part of that armoury'

Zep, you say that as though people are forced to pursue homeopathy. And you talk about 'armoury'. I think you must live in the world of socialized medicine where one has no choice except that it is paid for.

Please show where anyone has been forced to go to a homeopath, even in a socialistic society. Please show why I have no legal or moral or ethical choice about treatment for myself that I pay for myself (and because it is not covered by insurance I do in fact willingly pay all the costs of homeopathy because in the long run they are cheaper than continued allopathic treatment).

ripas, as part of your item #4 relating to children and pets, I think the more common response is that the mother is totally deluded about the state of her child (or the owner with regard to his pet) and is seeing exactly what she wants to see. That is certainly a condemnation of mothers and pet owners worldwide by the skeptics - clearly they are not capable of knowing whether the symptoms of concern have improved or gone away.

I am back! I can still post!

The above article by GEOERGE VITHOULKAS is actually a very strong condemnation of Homeopathy. He says that there is no good research to support it. In which case it is no better than any other brand of magic.

Someone said that Homeopathy cured his eczema. Well moisturising cream fixed mine without any worsening of the symptoms. So moisturising cream is better than Homeopathy. This is by your own standards, not mine.

I also have been called by various names. Does anybody have any evidence to back up these names?

robot, the article is not 'a strong condemnation of homeopathy', but a criticism - in Vithoulas's opinion - of the methods used in the studies. You seem too sharp not to see the difference.
Let me apply skeptic principles to your claim tht your eczema has been 'fixed' by using moisturising cream. I suggest it isn't 'fixed' but merely palliated - it still exists. If its gone, then there must be some homeopathic remedy in it, unknown to you!!!
I don't understand the last bit - what names have you been called?
ZepOz, I agree with you that we should present evidence protocols. The question is whether what is eveidence to A is also evidence to Z - in short, what I might accept as evidence may not meet your standards of evidence. I suspect your eveidence demands uniformity, which I don't think can be the standard adopted by homeopathy (I say 'you' representively).

Every one in this forum is fully entitled to convince other by putting forward his or her point of view by reviewing each article on scientific basis, but to give sweeping statement on George Vithoulkas article, with out convincing remarks, may not be justified & sincere efforts on our parts to arrive at certain conclusions, in favour or against homeopathy.

John,

I'm afraid to say that the arguments about homeopathy have gone a long way past being just theoretical objections. The lack of evidence produced comes after repeated PRACTICAL testing using the same type of methods that all modern medicines have to pass in order to be considered useful. And has done so for nigh on 100 years.

In fact, what you read as 'theoretical skeptic objections' are actually the substantiated explanations as to why the results turned out as they did. This isn't a wild accusation we are making here just to annoy homeopaths, just statements of obvious evidence.

However you have, perhaps unwittingly, outlined the precise question that REALLY needs to be answered by homeopaths: Does homeopathy work in the real world? Just saying that it does without evidence is actually a form of blind faith, not science.

You really need to consider what the next and obvious step is: What is your measure of success in this testing? More precisely, how do you absolutely ensure that the results you will get from any testing process will be absolutely and without question due to the action of homeopathy. That is, good solid unimpeachable evidence.

The obvious answers are that you have to eliminate any other causes for patient recovery from the testing process. ANY other causes. And these other causes could include any other medicines being taken at the same time, other illnesses occurring at the same time, and also facts like the ability of the body to recover naturally from many illnesses given enough time. And finally, you need to eliminate the placebo effect from the testing.

So a testing regime needs to take these factors into account. But is this difficult? Well, not really. And it can be done with real live patients and real live homeopathy. AND the individualisation of patient treatment considered necessary need not be compromised either.

In fact, some homeopaths have designed highly suitable tests along these lines that were scientifically, ethically and homeopathically acceptable. And they have been encouraged to proceed with these tests too. And yet not one of them ever has, to our knowledge... And we don't know why not.

And so we wait still for some homeopaths brave enough to implement these testing regimes... It would be a great and incontravertible breakthrough.

Daisy,

I have to admit, even after reading it a few times, I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid. Socialised medicine? Forced to attend...? Costs of medical care???

If it helps your confusion, I was talking about doctors in general having additional tools with which to fight illnesses, if homeopaths could only produce the necessary and irrevocable evidence of efficacy. Which they have not, and seem to not want to do, more's the pity.

Can I suggest that you read what I actually write, and not what you believe I think?

Ripas,

In answer to your point: No, uniformity is not the goal. Clear and irrefutable evidence is.

Any testing protocols merely need to eliminate any other explanations EXCEPT homeopathic treatment as the sole cause of any patient recovery. That is all.

zep-

since you obviously made up your own mind, what is the point of this exercise? you certainly won't prevent me and others from experimenting with homeopathy on the basis that homeopathy hasn't been scientifically proven.

I'm glad I looked past my skepticism, or I would still be covered in eczema. others such as myself are openminded enough to try something and see for themselves. I do trust my own powers of observation, and do not require a double blind study (lets not forget that this type of study is easily manipulated, just as those who died taking vioxx or other drugs, after tests showed the drugs safety). In fact, in the near future I plan on constructing a web page for my story and my sons, so others don't have to suffer as I did with 33 years of awful allopathic treatment. People trust other people who have lived through conditions like eczema, and no longer trust their allopathic doctors... for the simple reason that instinctively, people are waking up to the fact that such allopathic treatments have only temporary effects, and create long term problems. If only one parent out of 100 listens and understands, I will consider my web page a success.

perhaps you can explain to me why homeopathy has worked for me, while nothing else, allopathy or alternative, did. and please, don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that my recovery, at the same time as I started homeopathy, is a 'coincidence'. (after 34 years!) I'm not some foolish teenager apt to mind control or superstition. I'm a trained trial lawyer who makes his living unmasking lies.

I see your type on these 'alternative' forums again and again, attempting to prove that homeopathy or other alternative treatments are frauds (as if anyone really listens)... but somehow people keep taking this route. Is it out of some insecurity that makes you feel the need to keep reminding those of us who have woken up to the shortcommings of allopathy, that we are making a mistake? I mean really, what does it matter if we try homeopathy? what are you afraid of? that it might work better than drugs? (no question in my case).

rest assured zep, I pay for my homeopathic treatments out of my own pocket, without insurance... because it works. And, as I said before, my homeopath is also a licensed MD practicing in the U.S. (most make other docs burn with rage). he certainly has more medical training than yourself, and yet he, and a growing number of MD's, practice homeopathy. perhaps his education was not scientific enough? or he is also deluded? I think i'm done with this exercise. It has dawned on me that the forum largely ignores this sort of post as a distraction. I can understand why.

John

John,

Objection! For a lawyer, you are certainly trying to influence the jury with a whole bunch of strawman evidence! That is, facts not evidence. Any decent judge would have thrown those arguments out right at the beginning. Do you not agree?

As for the Vioxx studies and subsequent issues, this thread is not about that. You are certainly conflating evidence to support a point of view that bears no resemblance to the facts. But then I'm sure you also know what a tu quoque logical fallacy is too.

I have no idea what happened about your eczema or why. I'm not your doctor, I have no access to your medical records, and I have not the faintest idea what you may or may not have done to influence your own medical outcomes over the period you say this happened. But you know that anyway, so I can only put your pointless 'challenge' to me to diagnose and explain your medical recovery down to extreme sarcasm. Again, that's not particularly convincing to the jury as supporting evidence for anything at all really. So was there a point to that at all? It seems to have escaped me...

And guess what! I pay for my own medical care too! So do many people the world over. I think the medicines I take work because I know they do. I have the test-results and CAT scans to prove it. They were given to me, in consultation with me, by licensed MDs...and professors, and other people who are world specialists in their fields. Snap!

Finally, sir, if you have such highly developed analysis skills in detecting falsehoods, you might point out any evidence I have provided here that is not substantiated. How about anywhere here where I have lied. If you can not, perhaps you might like to rein in your venom and read what has been written, not what you believe I think? Instead of ranting about something that WASN'T said, then storming off in a huff?

I'm not doing that - how about you?

PS. Good luck with your website. I'd be interested to read it - are you interested in questions and discussion about it? Or are you going to forget all that and use it just as a billboard?

zep-

you confuse the purpose of my posting on my experience. I don't really care about winning over skeptics, its their loss to turn their back on alternative options, including homeopathy. No, my point is to reach others, long suffering patients, and parents of children afflicted with eczema... who receive pathetic allopathic treatment and are looking for options. they want to hear from others who have been through this (and recovered). For that reason, I will create my web site. word of mouth has always been very powerful for ordinary people who are concerned with only one basic question, does it work? and, people trust other's experiences, especially where nothing is being sold. so, i'll guess I have to admit, my 'evidence' won't win you over, but then again, that's not what I'm after... it will be good enough for many in my target audience.

finally zep, I don't see that you provided any 'evidence' at all. and, I see you ignore my toughest questions... why does my MD practice homeopathy? is he a fool?

Good luck. It appears you have had quite a bit of allopathic care, I hope you do well in spite of it.

John

i got fed up with taking my son to the dr with chronic ear ache every 3 weeks this went on for 3years of his life ,someone mentioned homeopathics . oh well ive got nothing to lose i was fed up with the screaming
i went and my son has only had two ear aches since he was in his 20s

John,

Ah! You seek an answer to a specific question! Why does your MD practice homeopathy as well as modern medicine? That one is easy: Money.

Homeopathy is free, you say? Let's just take a look at one of the larger homeopathic provider's financial results for last year: Boiron Laboratories.

As at 30 September 2006, sales in excess of 400 MILLION Euros were confidently expected for the year 2006.

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/homeopathic-laboratory/financia....

Let's do the conversion: 400,000,000 Euros is approximately half a billion US dollars. From just one homeopath company, in just one year. And they are not the only ones making remedies...

So there's a LOT of money being made in homeopathic remedy sales, and SOMEONE is paying for them. That would be the patients, ultimately.

Now let's look at the practicalities involved.

Your MD has to pay large amounts of insurance every year (especially in the USA) in case of malpractice suits. This is because the medicines h prescribes can easily be dangerous if they are misused (usually through patient stupidities, but doctors always seems to get lumped with the responsibility even in such cases). Because modern medicines actually do something, so they are highly regulated. That's an additional expense to him.

Now let's look at homeopathic remedies. They are unregulated, do not need safety warnings, and probably do not fall under any malpractice guidelines legally (you should be able to clarify that for us). So he can prescribe them without any reason to worry about legal backlash, that is no ongoing cost to him.

Next point: Your MD knows full well that many of his prescriptions are of the 'take two aspirin and see me in a few days time' variety, i.e. people just need reassurance while they recover by themselves. So rather than prescribe drugs that have a potential to be misused, he prescribes homeopathic remedies, which he knows are as safe as water and sugar. Again, simpler, easier, safer, and the patient will pay for the consult just the same.

Next point: Homeopathy is the a growing trend (so many here tell me). People will always pay for current trends. Your MD is also a businessman and is not stupid - he's not about to let potential income go elsewhere. So he goes with the flow...

Summary: I don't think I need to spell it out for you, do I?

just to note homeopathy is not a growing trend it has been a round for over 200 years
and im not suprised that drs have insurance 700 thousand die from medical malpractice a year and the drs that care about their patients will have qualiforcations, and in new zealand you cant practice with out one, but most drs are not homepaths