<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Homeopathy: Cutting on the Bias</title>
		<description>Discuss Homeopathy: Cutting on the Bias</description>
		<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:46:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/5863/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>No it isn't!</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1771</link>
			<description><![CDATA[http://jacobbauthumley.wordpress.com/homeopathy-is-nonsense/]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul  Grenville</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1771</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re Pharmaceutical Standards</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1553</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Brian Godfrey has commented that "the same pharmaceutical standards applied to conventional synthetic drugs cannot be applied to Homeopathy". This needs some clarification. The standards applied to testing conventional pharmaceutical drugs for efficacy are based on arbitrary definitions, and so are scientifically inadequate, leading to side effects when the drugs are used. For this reason evidence-based medicine (EBM) insists that results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have to be checked against the reality of clinical practice, and it is this evidence from clinical practice which may lead to a drug subsequently being withdrawn. Homeopathy can, of course, be tested using RCTs, and has been tested in this way for around 200 years.[1] However, it requires scientifically rigorous definitions to be used, since a homeopathic treatment is only active if it is appropriate. Failure to be sufficiently rigorous, therefore, means that a trial is testing an inactive treatment against an inert one, with the inevitable result that homeopathy appears to be a placebo.[2] In fact homeopathy has not been tested in such a trial. As a result, particularly high standards are required when testing homeopathic treatment, and these are rarely found, either because homeopaths are unaware of the requirements of pharmacologists , or because pharmacologists  are unaware of the requirements of homeopathy. References 1. See Michael Emmans Dean, The Trials of Homeopathy: Origins, Structure and Development (Essen: KVC Verlag, 2004). 2. See Paolo Bellavite and Andrea Signorini, The Emerging Science of Homeopathy: Complexity, biodynamics, and nanopharmacolog y (Berkley: North Atlantic Books, 2002), p. 45. They refer to R.H. Savage and P.F. Roe, ‚ÄòA further double-blind trial to assess the benefit of Arnica montana in acute stroke illness‚Äô, Brit. Hom. J., 67 (1978), p. 210 and A.M. Scofield, ‚ÄòExperimental research in homeopathy: A critical review‚Äô, 2 parts, Brit. Hom. J., 73 (1984), p. 161.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>William Alderson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:57:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1553</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RE: Homeopathy: Cutting on the Bias</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1547</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Homeopathy is sympathetic magic. It is incredible to me that a socialist platform should tout this mumpsimus. 'Only' ¬£12m of public money wasted on this mumbo jumbo! As for its popularity, there are many harmful and foolish things that are popular - rhino horn for example. If water indeed has a memory, then I cannot see why its memory of fecal matter should not be as rtelevant as its memory of some in any case inert substance, with no curative effects. The popularity of homeopathy is enduring proof, if any were needed, that otherwise reasonable people can strongly believe in transparent hokum -because they want to believe it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Holland</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:11:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1547</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>the left should welcome homeopathy's collapse</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1545</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What am embarrassing collection of discredited viewpoints this page contains. The public demolition of homeopathy in the uk over the past year or so has actually been very positive. It's been led not by big pharma but by campaigning jounalists. Its seen politicians challenge big business that sell products that dont work (Boots). Most importantly, its seen reason win out against mumbo-jumbo. Isnt that we on the left all want?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>david w</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1545</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RE: Homeopathy: Cutting on the Bias</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1544</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There's a very interesting article from What Doctors Don't Tell You on homeopathy: Nobel scientist discovers scientific basis of homeopathy 07 July 2010 In the week that doctors have described homeopathy as ‚Äònonsense on stilts‚Äô, a Nobel prize-winning scientist has made a discovery about the nature of water that suggests the therapy does have a scientific basis. Professor Luc Montagnier, a French virologist who won the Nobel prize for discovering a link between HIV and AIDS, has shocked fellow Nobel prize-winners by telling them that water has a memory that continues even after many dilutions. The idea is one of the foundations of homeopathy, which maintains that the potency of a substance is increased with its dilution. Montagnier has discovered that solutions containing the DNA of viruses and bacteria ‚Äúcould emit low frequency radio waves‚Äù. These waves influence molecules around them, and turn them into organised structures. These molecules in turn can emit waves. He has discovered that the waves remain in the water, even after it has been diluted many times. Montagnier‚Äôs statement couldn‚Äôt happen at a worse time for doctors. Last week, the UK‚Äôs British Medical Association (BMA) ‚Äì the trade union of doctors ‚Äì passed a resolution to stop homeopathy being made available on the National Health Service. It also wants all homeopathic remedies to be placed in a special area marked ‚ÄòPlacebos‚Äô in health shops and pharmacies. The NHS currently spends around ¬£4m a year on homeopathy, mainly by funding four homeopathic hospitals in the UK. (Sources: Sunday Times, July 4, 2010; British Medical Association).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jane Kelly</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:17:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1544</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Brian Godfrey says:</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1477</link>
			<description><![CDATA[BMA CONFERENCE RE HOMEOPATHY What is it about Homeopathy that evidence based medicine (EBM) find so disturbing that it has now brought in the British Medical Association (BMA) to vote on a number of resolutions calling on the NHS to stop funding Homeopathic hospitals and treatments? In the same way that that the Church in the 15th century could not integrate the Copernican heliocentric theory of the solar system into their rigid dogma, so EBM has refused to acknowledge any other system of healing other than their own. Most of us are familiar with the propaganda the scientific opponents of Homeopathy have been actively promoting that there is a consensus of opinion that Homeopathy does not work. However, have these opponents fully studied Homeopathic literature, met and talked to a suitable teacher, and followed Hahnemann‚Äôs extensive testing principles? Without this, the refutation of Homeopathy is without foundation, for under true open-minded scientific thinking, you have not studied the subject, and are thus in no position to judge. Why should the dominant Goliath EBM be so afraid of the David Homeopathy? Why should EBM and the BMA deny patients the right of choice in their treatment? Not everyone responds to synthetic drugs, yet EBM insists on the ‚Äúherd‚Äù principle that one drug fits all. It is interesting to note that iatrogenic illness, caused by the side effects of EBM drugs, is the 4th largest cause of death in the Western world. A statistic not held by Homeopathy. A parallel to the war on Homeopathy is the European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products. Legally, the Directive requires that the same pharmaceutical standards applied to conventional synthetic drugs, is applied to herbal products and has not taken into account the complex nature of very long-standing non-European medical systems. As a result, it discriminates against the traditional medical systems of both China and Indian subcontinent which are integral to over one third of the world‚Äôs population. Therefore, the same pharmaceutical standards applied to conventional synthetic drugs cannot be applied to Homeopathy for the simple reason it does not take into account the different nature of the workings of Homeopathy. So the question has to be asked‚Ä¶.What is your problem when it appears that all the ‚Äúmedical‚Äù cards are stacked in favour of EBM? Why deny the choice of treatment when the cost in miniscule in relation to EBM treatments? If Homeopathy is destroyed by EBM‚Ä¶what is next on the list?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Brian Godfrey</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 06:43:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1477</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul  Grenville says:</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1425</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Further to my little piece on homeopathic medicine, there is very nice pamphlet by Dr Harimohan Choudhury, a lifelong Indian Communist and homeopathic innovator, who wrote about the relationship between homeopathic medicine and dialectical materialism. Unfortunately I have the pamphlet no longer. Successfully homeopathic prescribing is actually a beautiful example of the laws of dialectics (Engels), just as conventional medical philosophy is a beautiful example of mechanistic materialism in action (La Mettrie). It is not surprising that homeopathic medicine flourished in the Soviet Union, and that there was an Institute of Homeopathic Medicine in Moscow, Paul Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:02:58 +0100 Dear all Thanks all you angels for a fascinating debate on homeopathy. It clearly doesn't need our impassioned defence as it is now worldwide and available in over 120 countries. Have you sceptics ever wondered about its extraordinary spread, in the teeth of official medicine's opposition? Doesn't it tell one something about its effectiveness? Doesn't it tell you something that sane, rational, Western medical doctors who train in conventional medicine CONTINUE to defect to homeopathy? Why does a medical doctor's experience of practising homeopathy result in a higher level of work satisfaction? Here's the experience of a Glasgow GP who converted his practice to homeopathy (https://heroesnotzombies.wordpress.com/homeopathy). Dr David O'Reilly conducted the same piece of research on homeopathy THREE times and got the same homeopathy positive result. What do three positives in a row mean? (http://www.amacf.org/2006/07/the_homeopathic.html) Why do medical doctors do this? Against all their training, against the mechanical materialist viewpoint of conventional medicine? Have they suddenly become interested in magic? How many cases are there of homeopaths and homeopathic doctors who defect to conventional medicine? I've come across homeopaths who have studied conventional medicine, like the late Dr Tinus Smits (here:http://www.tinussmits.com/3734/home.aspx. Numerous case histories here of the successful treatment of autism (on which he published a book before he died), and 29 cases of the successful treatment of the sequelae of vaccinations), but they don't leave homeopathy and go off and practice conventional medicine as a result. Homeopathy really is experiential medicine - once experienced you don't look back.It seems it's the individual experiential reality of the illness that homeopathic prescription acts on, not the illness itself. This causes consternation to people who think the result of the disease is the disease itself. (More here: http://www.oxford-homeopathy.org.uk/homeopathy-experiments.htm). The chap who had a violent allergic reaction to a homeopathic medicine: how could you react to a mere placebo? Was it the sucrose or the lactose? Maybe you reacted to the medicine itself? Homeopathy is not free of the occasional adverse reaction; it's medicine, and all medicine carries risks! I personally feel however that with homeopathy the risk element is minimised. Anyone who wants to verify that Homeopathic medicines "do something": just try taking Nux Vomica 30c three times daily for a month and then tell me it's a placebo. I think Mr Ben Goldacre (a noted homeopathy sceptic, author of a book called Bad Science), who I feel is a nice chap and perfectly genuine, could start there. A little practical empiricism goes a long way! Real scientists are fascinated by homeopathy! (http://www.moleculardyne.com: long long list of scientific references validating homeopathy). Just as they are fascinated by paradox and singularity. In India there are seven and a half million medical doctors, 400,000 of whom qualified in the speciality of homeopathy. 13,000 Indian doctors a year qualifyin homeopathy. Have a look at Dr A U Ramakrishnan's website (http://www.drramakrishnan.com). He has refined the technology of homeopathic prescribing to treat hundreds of cases of breast cancer,glioma (malignant brain tumour), liver cancer, prostate cancer, and he gives statistics over hundreds of cases for his success rates. Sceptics of homeopathy never refer to his work; the sceptics' case just withers in the face of the evidence. This morning I found this http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/features/38-opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias. I felt it was a valuable contribution; enjoy! with love to all, Paul Grenville]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul  Grenville</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 06:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/5863-homeopathy-cutting-on-the-bias#comment-1425</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

