Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Homeopathy no better than sugar pill"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Homeopathy no better than sugar pill"

    I was sad to see this (link below) in my paper this morning - the Globe and Mail, here in Canada. The published results will be in the Lancet this week. I wouldn't even know how to form a response to this article and I'm sure several readers of the paper will join forces in support of this nonsense. It is a national paper so there are potentially 10 million readers. Can anyone form a proper rebuttle? Something to do with the way the tests were conducted? The letters section can be easily accessed online at www.globeandmail.com and they routinely publish responses from around the world.

    thanks,
    Martha

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...enceandHealth/

  • #2
    RE: "Homeopathy no better than sugar pill"

    For a mainstream article this wasn't so bad. It was fairly balanced if you read the whole thing - although the cons got the headline (that's the news biz.)

    Richard Knapp
    Last edited by jonh; 27th August 2005, 04:40 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "Homeopathy no better than sugar pill"

      My first post here. I run a "natural-health" clinic at East Grinstead in Sussex south of London, and use homoeopathy for animals, which I select on the basis of dowsing. I've been 25 years at this and quite a lot of the time the answer to a case or a problem of any kind is given to me directly in the mind. We have an excellent classical homoeopath here and after explaining to him the fine details of the application of Arsenic Met, Strychnine and Belladonna to different characteristics, I got him interested in learning dowsing for himself - the doom of course of any classical homoeopath since it gets them immediately into compound homoeopathy - multiple remedies. I don't use homoeopathy for people because its "mind-set" doesn't go deep enough for me into individual psychological problems which animals don't suffer from. Anyway, enough intro.

      I have long been interested in why orthodox trials of natural medicine don't ackle the way actual practice does, but now things are getting nasty with this Swiss metastudy saying there's nothing in homoeopathy when anyone who practises or uses it knows that this is nonsense. Dowsing itself comes hopelessly unstuck in trials, to the degree that the Society of Dowsers issues warnings about becoming involved in them: quite evidently there is psychological influence of some sort. Dowsers are sure this is because of hostility to anything weird on the part of researchers: but with dowsing I don't think this is right. The hom. hospital in Glasgow tested dowsing in 2002 and it failed completely: how could they be hostile to it when some of them used it ? What I found was that it is enough if the majority of people involved in a study don't subscribe to the therapy or practice themselves: they throw water over any unconscious expectation foreign to them. A James Randi trial of dowsing on TV in 1992 had this effect undone by an affirmation by two of the dowsers that he couldn't affect them and it went very well - he even tried to have the programme pulled !

      This is a complex business and I won't go on about it, but we shall win through in the end once we have learnt what the remedies are. Of course it doesn't affect practice but I do wonder if we don't unwittingly spike practice by harbouring unwitting negativities ourselves ...

      Dan Wilson
      www.acorncentre.org/

      Comment


      • #4
        I was sad to see this (link below) in my paper this morning - the Globe and Mail, here in Canada. The published results will be in the Lancet this week. I wouldn't even know how to form a response to this article and I'm sure several readers of the paper will join forces in support of this nonsense. It is a national paper so there are potentially 10 million readers. Can anyone form a proper rebuttle? Something to do with the way the tests were conducted? The letters section can be easily accessed online at www.globeandmail.com and they routinely publish responses from around the world.

        thanks,
        Martha

        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ienceandHealth/
        Reply With Quote
        The intention seems to be a global onslaught against homeopathy!
        My first reaction was - you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time. Most of the people in India who use homeopathy will have a good laugh that the effect is placebo - but there are many without the homeopathic exposure on the fence, and of course it could push them back on the other side.

        BEsides hey - do you know that the 'placebo effect' is also a well documented positive therapy? So this is not a "Bad" review. What is the next step is to prove that homeopAthy can work BEYOND the palcebo effect - and that will be documented only is clearly pathological or "incurable" cases. Its time for homeopaths to Bite the Bullet....
        MIASMS anybody??

        There have been many discussions about the authenticity of these trials conducted - but I think the most relavent one is that COntrolled trials are not conducive to homeoapthic principles of prescribing remedies.
        Here is a very useful article a team member at hapthy.com wrote for the ezine that would be worth reading on trial protocols:
        http://www.hpathy.com/research/shere...homeopathy.asp

        The other aspect is to keep in mind the relative economical insecurity developing in certain large industries when people begin to accept that expensive drugs are not required, that vaccines are not required, and people will go to a doctor for a diagnosis but refuse to take or be prescribed any medication.... Gone ar ethe days when a medication was prescribed and the patient had to take it. Today, it has become the patients prerogative to accept antibiotics and steriods or not!

        that's my 2.5 cents...
        Dr. leela
        http://www.homeopathy2health.com

        Comment


        • #5
          All we need to refute this is to have case studies with animals or trials with animals. Having used it on my dog and brought him back from paralysation with Conium I have to attest to its power. Still those that dont believe or open their minds will be doomed to a life of darkness and superficial healing that never really heals completely.

          You can only pity them because they refuse to acknowlege signs or messages that teach and enable them to grow. When you think you know everything, you really know nothing. I have to remember that constantly and keep learning.

          Then there are those that put all their faith in a piece of grilled cheese sandwich that resembles a figure no one really knows what he really looks like!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Homeopath's in UK react to Lancet study on homeopathy.

            The British Homeopathic Association (BHA), which says it has 1,000 doctors on its books, strongly disagreed (with the Lancet report). “The report should be treated with extreme caution. It is being heavily spun,” Peter Fisher, clinical director at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, said on behalf of the BHA.

            “For a prestigious medical journal it is a strange bit of reporting. It is a small sample and they don’t even tell you what they are basing this on. Yet they come to these very sweeping conclusions and write this very strongly worded editorial,” he told Reuters.

            “Homeopathy has been suffering these types of attacks for 200 years but it goes from strength to strength because people want it and many studies prove it works.”

            http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1446132.htm

            Friday August 26, 12:06 AM


            New study says homeopathic medicines don't work

            File photo of drugs
            Click to enlarge photo

            LONDON (Reuters) - The world may be beating a path to the doors of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to conventional medicines, but according to a new study they may just as well be taking nothing.

            The study, published in Friday's edition of the respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.

            "There was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions," the study concluded.

            "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects," it added after examining findings from 110 homeopathy trials and an equal number of conventional medical trials.

            In an editorial, the Lancet urged doctors to tell their patients they were wasting their time taking homeopathic medicines -- but also to make more time to connect with the patients rather than just prescribing and forgetting.

            "Now doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy's lack of benefits, and with themselves about the failings of modern medicine to address patients' needs for personalised care," the journal said.

            Entitled "The end of homeopathy", the editorial queried how homeopathy was growing in popularity by leaps and bounds when for the past 150 years trials had found it ineffective.

            "It is the attitudes of patients and providers that engender alternative-therapy seeking behaviours which create a greater threat to conventional care -- and patients' welfare -- than do spurious arguments of putative benefits from absurd dilutions," it said.

            BOOMING SALES

            Practitioners of homeopathic medicine, invented in the late 1700s by German physician Samuel Hahnemann, believe that the weaker the solution, the more effective the medicine.

            In Britain alone, sales of homeopathic medicines have grown by a third in the past five years to 32 million pounds in 2004.

            The study's lead author and statistical analyst Matthias Egger of Switzerland's University of Berne, said once data from small, less rigorous trials was extracted and evident bias in both taken into account, the conclusions were inescapable.

            "We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible, but we have shown that the effects seen in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy are compatible with the placebo-hypothesis," he wrote.

            But the British Homeopathic Association (BHA), which says it has 1,000 doctors on its books, strongly disagreed.

            "The report should be treated with extreme caution. It is being heavily spun," Peter Fisher, clinical director at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, said on behalf of the BHA.

            "For a prestigious medical journal it is a strange bit of reporting. It is a small sample and they don't even tell you what they are basing this on. Yet they come to these very sweeping conclusions and write this very strongly worded editorial," he told Reuters.

            "Homeopathy has been suffering these types of attacks for 200 years but it goes from strength to strength because people want it and many studies prove it works."
            --------------------------------------------------------------------
            Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

            Comment


            • #7
              Lancet study on homeopathy biased.

              Lancet study on homeopathy biased.

              The Lancet has published the results of a study comparing peer-reviewed studies in homeopathy against studies in conventional medicine. Out of 110 matched studies only 8 of the homeopathic studies were compared to 6 studies of conventional medicine. The report concludes that homeopathy is no better than placebo. The study is poor, but makes some very strong claims.

              Researches were highly selective and looked at only double-blind placebo-controlled homeopathic studies (which were probably prescribed on allopathic rather than homeopathic principles). In a double-blind placebo-controlled study normally only one medicine is given against the placebo. Homeopathy will naturally do poorly if the selected medicine is not similar to the symptoms displayed in the patient.

              Prescribing methods for homeopathy are not compatible with this type of study because the homeopath needs to make a homeopathic diagnosis, not a
              conventional diagnosis. For example, for someone with asthma there are a number of remedies that could be used depending on the characteristics of the disease. It may be more bronchial (wet) or dry asthma, be affected at different times (eg, worse at night) or in different seasons. Hence 10 people with asthma may require different homeopathic medicines.

              Constructing a study on homeopathy is difficult, as the method of diagnosis is so different to conventional medicine. Also, the amount of funding for studies into homeopathy is almost non-existent compared to the funds available for conventional medical studies.

              It also seems that the researchers of the Lancet study are quite biased in anything that does not match their concept of treatment, as the following quote from a researcher suggests (emphasis mine):

              [ Juni thinks the findings show that homeopathic remedies don’t have any biological benefits. “Based on these trials, remedies which do not fit into our
              traditional concepts of biological mechanisms do not have a specific effect,” he said. “We cannot prove the negative, but we find an effect which might just be a placebo effect or a nonspecific effect.” ]

              Not long ago a large study showing that homeopathy is more effective than conventional medicine had a brief mention by one news source (the telegraph), while this new study saying it is no better than placebo has been picked up by a number of news sources. It seems main stream media is keen to show homeopathy in a negative light, simply because it does not conform to the scientific status quo.

              This new study also conflicts with a preliminary report on homeopathy from the World Health Organization. It states that the majority of peer-reviewed
              placebo controlled studies of homeopathy over the last 40 years demonstrate that homeopathy is superior to placebo. The WHO study says that homeopathy is equivalent to conventional medicine in its effectiveness.

              Just recently placebo was found to have a physical effect on the body, releasing opioid like substances called endorphins. Endorphins are the body’s own natural pain-killing substance that are much more powerful than any pain killing drug.

              Homeopathy is becoming very popular again. In Britain alone, sales of homeopathic medicines have grown by a third in the past five years to 32 million pounds in 2004. Recently Prince Charles issued an inquiry into alternative medicine, which found that £480 million could be saved if just 10% of GP’s prescribed homeopathy instead of conventional medicine. Homeopathy is not only cheap it is effective.

              The study is poor and goes against the general finding that homeopathy does
              work and is just as effective (in some cases more effective) than conventional medicine. More disappointing is the mainstream media’s strong reporting of such a weak study as cold hard fact.

              References at:
              http://www.althealthinfo.com/2005/08...propag%5Canda/


              --------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "Homeopathy no better than sugar pill"

                It was bad in the UK GUARDIAN, which is the most liberal of the big nationals and I was pretty shaken by it. Not to mention furious. The thing that enraged me the most is some extraneous joker being QUOTED as saying that

                According to homeopathic thinking, if I find the optimal remedy for you, I would expect an aggravation which could be very hefty and put you into hospital for several days with your symptoms. . . . The safety isn't there. They say it is necessary on the way to recovery' . . . which is not only TOTAL rubbish, but they're trying to have it both ways: homeopathy is nonsense and does nothing, but homeopathy is DANGEROUS and will make you WORSE.

                I'm trying to tell myself that they wouldn't bother trashing it so comprehensively if it were no threat to the established order--it was a lead story on the tiny news headlines clips on Radio 3 yesterday for pity's sake--but it's really depressing that the LANCET is going down the bash-homeopathy route so enthusiastically. Again from the GUARDIAN 'a hard-hitting editorial in the LANCET, entitled "The end of homeopathy" demands that doctors recognise the absence of real curative powers in homeopathic medicine.' Not even a question mark after that title.

                Robin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Homeopath's in UK react to Lancet study onhomeopathy.

                  amazing also that this report just *happened* to be ready to come out hot on the heels of a report saying that Homeopathy was effective

                  Simon

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Homeopathy news - Lancet

                    It's a shame that every news organization is carrying a reference to this Lancet article, even Reuters - which means now it's worldwide news. Here's the latest:

                    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/

                    My own physician has been diplomatic about his choice of words re homeopathy, but now he's got the Lancet to cite - the Lancet is pretty much the last word in medicine for doctors - along with JAMA. I'm never going to hear the end of it now.

                    Martha

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Homeopathy no better than a sugar pill

                      Re: Homeopathy no better than a sugar pill.

                      Go to the website of National Center for Homeopathy www.homeopathic.org to see that NCH provided a professional rebuttal.

                      Jean Hoagland

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Homeopathy news - Lancet

                        it is an allopathic journal after all.................

                        And the Lancet hasn't done well in the last few years. The Lancet published the original research of Andrew Wakefield and clinical findings in the bowel of autistic children (possible relationship to MMR)....................what the Lancet has done in the last few years to trash Wakefield is appalling

                        And

                        http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibli...85421391:14.95

                        Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with
                        Your Future
                        by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

                        Medical Ghostwriting

                        [Air Date: Mar 25, 2003 Reporter: Erica Johnson Producer: Michael
                        Gruzuk Associate Producer: Colman Jones. Thanks to Mike Glavic.]
                        http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/f...ing/index.html
                        " Snitch makes over $100,000 a year as a medical ghostwriter. An article that makes its way into a prestigious medical journal — like the Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine — will earn up to $20,000.

                        http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/s...101706,00.html

                        Revealed: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals

                        Pharmaceutical giants hire ghostwriters to produce articles - then put doctors' names on them

                        "Healy says such deception is becoming more frequent. 'I believe 50 per cent of articles on drugs in the major medical journals are not written in a way that the average person would expect them to be... the evidence I have seen would suggest there are grounds to think a significant proportion of the articles in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and the Lancet may be written with help from medical writing agencies,' he said. 'They are no more than infomercials paid for by drug firms.'"

                        http://www.independent.co.uk/580600.html
                        Monday, 8 November


                        Anger as ministers block science publishing shake-up

                        http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._whistleblower

                        Lancet nearly published Vioxx papers

                        The FDA rebutted Graham's testimony with filings on the agency Web site. An FDA official also sent e-mail messages to the medical journal Lancet expressing concerns about a Vioxx study by Graham that the journal was preparing to publish. Eventually, Graham withdrew the paper after he could not obtain a clear approval from the FDA for its publication.


                        http://www.ahrp.org
                        Questions arise about how reliable is the investigators' published 2003 report in The Lancet claiming that nevirapine treatment reduced the transmission of HIV from mother to infant by 41%?

                        Within the last couple of years, we have witnessed a mounting body of evidence pointing to systemic corruption within the academic medical research community-including the FDA and NIH. A cascade of alarming evidence comes from highly credible sources-including company documents obtained through court procedures, eye witness reports by courageous whistleblowers in academia, government agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry.

                        Even Richard Horton, editor of theLancet has this to say (although he is as tainted, himself, as the rest)
                        http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...act/330/7481/9
                        BMJ 2005;330:9 (1 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7481.9

                        Editor claims drug companies have a "parasitic" relationship with journals

                        London Lynn Eaton

                        The relationship between medical journals and the drug industry is "somewhere between symbiotic and parasitic," according to the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton. But at the moment it has swung too much towards the parasitic, he told the House Commons select committee on health last month in his oral evidence on the role of the industry.

                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science andGambles with Your Future

                          http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibli...0Paper:New:158
                          5421391:14.95

                          Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with
                          Your Future
                          by Sheldon Rampton
                          ISBN:1585421391 (More details...)
                          Available at:Quimby Warehouse

                          Other customers have also purchased:
                          Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated by Gore Vidal
                          In the Absence of the Sacred by Jerry Mander
                          The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution
                          and Chose Our President by Vincent Bugliosi
                          War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges
                          Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You by Norman Solomon and
                          Reese Erlich

                          Powells.com Staff Pick
                          Trust Us, We're Experts! blows the lid off so-called "third party" experts,
                          hirelings of the corporate elite's who do transnationals' bidding under the
                          guise of independence. Every time you hear "W" say "I want to make policy
                          based on 'sound science,'" remember the only science he is interested in is
                          the science sponsored by the industries who put him in office. If you want
                          proof, read this book. You should also read Toxic Sludge is Good for You
                          and Mad Cow USA by that same pair. While you're at it read anything by Noam
                          Chomsky, Marshall McLuhan or Michel Foucault. Those in power have the
                          ability to frame the debate and as P. T. Barnum said, "nobody ever went
                          broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Or was that
                          Ronald Reagan? I forget. Recommended by John McMahon

                          Synopses & Reviews
                          Publisher Comments:
                          We count on the experts. We count on them to tell us who to vote for, what
                          to eat, how to raise our children. We watch them on TV, listen to them on
                          the radio, read their opinions in magazine and newspaper articles and
                          letters to the editor. We trust them to tell us what to think, because
                          there's too much information out there and not enough hours in a day to
                          sort it all out.
                          We should stop trusting them right this second.

                          In their new book Trust Us, We're Experts!: How Industry Manipulates
                          Science and Gambles with Your Future, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber,
                          authors of Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, offer a chilling exposé on the
                          manufacturing of "independent experts."

                          Public relations firms and corporations know well how to exploit your trust
                          to get you to buy what they have to sell: Let you hear it from a neutral
                          third party, like a professor or a pediatrician or a soccer mom or a
                          watchdog group. The problem is, these third parties are usually anything
                          but neutral. They have been handpicked, cultivated, and meticulously
                          packaged in order to make you believe what they have to say-preferably in
                          an "objective" format like a news show or a letter to the editor. And in
                          some cases, they have been paid handsomely for their "opinions."

                          For example:
                          *You think that nonprofit organizations just give away their stamps of
                          approval on products? Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $600,000 to the American
                          Heart Association for the right to display AHA's name and logo in ads for
                          its cholesterol-lowering drug Pravachol. SmithKline Beecham paid the
                          American Cancer Society $1 million for the right to use its logo in ads for
                          Beecham's Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking ads.

                          *You think that a study out of a prestigious university is completely
                          unbiased? In 1997, Georgetown University's Credit Research Center issued a
                          study which concluded that many debtors are using bankruptcy as an excuse
                          to wriggle out of their obligations to creditors. Former U.S. Treasury
                          Secretary Lloyd Bentsen cited the study in a Washington Times column and
                          advocated for changes in federal law to make it harder for consumers to
                          file for bankruptcy relief. What Bentsen failed to mention was that the
                          Credit Research Center is funded in its entirety by credit card companies,
                          banks, retailers, and others in the credit industry; that the study itself
                          was produced with a $100,000 grant from VISA USA, Inc. and MasterCard
                          International; and that Bentsen himself had been hired to work as a
                          credit-industry lobbyist.

                          *You think that all grassroots organizations are truly grassroots? In 1993,
                          a group called Mothers Opposing Pollution (MOP) appeared, calling itself
                          "the largest women's environmental group in Australia, with thousands of
                          supporters across the country." Their cause: A campaign against plastic
                          milk bottles. It turned out that the group's spokesperson, Alana Maloney,
                          was in truth a woman named Janet Rundle, the business partner of a man who
                          did P.R. for the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers-the
                          makers of paper milk cartons.

                          *You think that if a scientist says so, it must be true? In the early
                          1990s, tobacco companies secretly paid thirteen scientists a total of
                          $156,000 to write a few letters to influential medical journals. One
                          biostatistician received $10,000 for writing a single, eight-paragraph
                          letter that was published in the Journal of the American Medical
                          Association. A cancer researcher received $20,137 for writing four letters
                          and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the Journal of the National Cancer
                          Institute, and The Wall Street Journal.

                          Rampton and Stauber reveal many more such examples of "perception
                          management"-all of them orchestrated to make us buy or believe whatever the
                          "independent expert" is pushing. They also explore the underlying
                          assumptions about human psychology-e.g., "the public must be manipulated
                          for its own good"-that make this kind of subliminal hard-sell possible.

                          Destined to be hated by P.R. firms and corporations everywhere, Trust Us,
                          We're Experts! is an eye-opening account of how these entities reshape our
                          reality, manufacture our consent, get us to part with our money, even
                          change our lives. A whole new spin on spin, it will forever alter the way
                          we look at news, information, and the people who serve it up to us.

                          Review:
                          "Trust Us, We're Experts is a brilliant piece of investigative journalism
                          and a powerful vaccine against the stupefying effects of the corporate PR
                          machine. Spread it around!"
                          Barbara Ehrenreich
                          Review:
                          "If you want to know how the world wags, and who's wagging it, here's your
                          answer. Read, get mad, roll up your sleeves, and fight back. Rampton and
                          Stauber have issued a wake-up call we can't ignore."
                          Bill Moyers
                          Review:
                          "If you've ever wanted to see a TV spin doctor hog-tied and dragged through
                          the streets, Rampton and Stauber do the next best thing. This book is
                          modern muckraking of the best variety, skewering hype and showing us how to
                          separate real experts from snake oil salesmen and hired corporate
                          know-it-alls."
                          Jim Hightower
                          Review:
                          "Rampton and Stauber have once again exposed the ugly underbelly of
                          corporate America's psychological war on our citizens. Trust Us, We're
                          Experts! shows how giant corporations employ sophisticated psychiatric
                          techniques, unscrupulous public figures, paid biostitutes, junk science,
                          tainted studies and clever PR mercenaries in a relentless effort to market
                          products that routinely kill, maim, deform and poison consumers and our
                          environment."
                          Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President, Water Keeper Alliance
                          Synopsis:
                          In this meticulously researched expos, the authors unmask the sneaky and
                          widespread methods industry uses to influence opinion through bogus
                          experts, doctored data, and manufactured facts.
                          Synopsis:
                          The book that unmasks the sneaky and widespread methods industry uses to
                          influence opinion through bogus experts, doctored data, and manufactured
                          facts.



                          "Finally a long-overdue exposé of the shenanigans and subterfuge that lie
                          behind the making of experts in America." (Jeremy Rifkin)



                          "If you want to know how the world wags, and who's wagging it, here's your
                          answer." (Bill Moyers)



                          "Meticulously researched . . . Rampton and Stauber's documentation of PR
                          campaigns proves that they are the real 'experts.' " (Brill's Content)
                          back to top
                          About the Author
                          John Stauber is the founder and director of the Center for Media
                          & Democracy. He and Sheldon Rampton write and edit the quarterly PR Watch:
                          Public Interest Reporting on the PR/Public Affairs Industry.
                          back to top
                          Product Details
                          ISBN:1585421391
                          Subtitle:How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future
                          Author:Rampton, Sheldon
                          Author:Stauber, John
                          Publisher:Penguin Putnam
                          Subject:General
                          Subject:U.S. Government
                          Subject:Conspiracy & Scandal Investigations
                          Subject:Practical Politics
                          Subject:Consumer protection
                          Subject:Public Relations
                          Subject:Government - U.S. Government
                          Subject:Political Process - General
                          Subject:Industrial publicity
                          Subject:Corporations
                          Subject:Public relations consultants.
                          Subject:Public relations firms
                          Subject:Expertise.
                          Subject:Endorsements in advertising.
                          Subject:Deceptive advertising.
                          Subject:Risk perception
                          Subject:Business Ethics
                          Edition Description:1st trade paperback ed.
                          Series Volume:C 2 KBR/01-10
                          Publication Date:January 2002
                          Binding:Paper Textbook
                          Language:English
                          Pages:368
                          Dimensions:8.32x5.46x.97 in. .91 lbs.
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
                          Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
                          Vaccination Information & Choice Network
                          http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
                          http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
                          homeopathycures@tesco.net
                          ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
                          ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
                          Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: "Homeopathy no better than sugar pill"

                            Kenneth Salls <kenneth_salls@yahoo.com> wrote:--- Dan Wilson wrote:

                            > My first post here. I run a "natural-health" clinic at East Grinstead in
                            > Sussex south of London, and use homoeopathy for animals, which I select
                            > on the basis of dowsing. I've been 25 years at this and quite a lot of
                            > the time the answer to a case or a problem of any kind is given to me
                            > directly in the mind. We have an excellent classical homoeopath here and
                            > after explaining to him the fine details of the application of Arsenic
                            > Met, Strychnine and Belladonna to different characteristics, I got him
                            > interested in learning dowsing for himself - the doom of course of any
                            > classical homoeopath since it gets them immediately into compound
                            > homoeopathy - multiple remedies. I don't use homoeopathy for people
                            > because its "mind-set" doesn't go deep enough for me into individual
                            > psychological problems which animals don't suffer from. Anyway, enough
                            > intro.
                            >
                            > I have long been interested in why orthodox trials of natural medicine
                            > don't ackle the way actual practice does, but now things are getting
                            > nasty with this Swiss metastudy saying there's nothing in homoeopathy
                            > when anyone who practises or uses it knows that this is nonsense. Dowsing
                            > itself comes hopelessly unstuck in trials, to the degree that the Society
                            > of Dowsers issues warnings about becoming involved in them: quite
                            > evidently there is psychological influence of some sort. Dowsers are sure
                            > this is because of hostility to anything weird on the part of
                            > researchers: but with dowsing I don't think this is right. The hom.
                            > hospital in Glasgow tested dowsing in 2002 and it failed completely: how
                            > could they be hostile to it when some of them used it ? What I found was
                            > that it is enough if the majority of people involved in a study don't
                            > subscribe to the therapy or practice themselves: they throw water over
                            > any unconscious expectation foreign to them. A James Randi trial of
                            > dowsing on TV in 1992 had this effect undone by an affirmation by two of
                            > the dowsers that he couldn't affect them and it went very well - he even
                            > tried to have the programme pulled !


                            > This is a complex business and I won't go on about it, but we shall win
                            > through in the end once we have learnt what the remedies are. Of course
                            > it doesn't affect practice but I do wonder if we don't unwittingly spike
                            > practice by harbouring unwitting negativities ourselves ...


                            >>>>


                            Could very well be.

                            About expectations - I had a case (myself) of eczema of twenty years
                            standing...I went to "conventional" doctors, to Chinese traditional
                            doctors, to herbalists, to two "big name" homeopaths (in the SF area),
                            to shamans, to psychic healers...you name it...Well...who finally
                            got the correct remedy?...Mr. Carl Upton, a British dowser (since
                            deceased) without ever meeting me, just through the post, got Tuber.
                            bov. 1m and I haven't had a recurrence since (15 years)...So much
                            for worthless little pills (and dowsing).



                            ---------------------------------
                            Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: &quot;Homeopathy no better than sugar pill&quot;

                              Dan Wilson <dwilz@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:

                              In-Reply-To: <20050826192719.10901.qmail@web50404.mail.yahoo.co m>
                              Kenneth - [not sure yet if you posted this to list]

                              >> About expectations - I had a case (myself) of eczema of twenty years
                              >> standing...I went to "conventional" doctors, to Chinese traditional
                              >> doctors, to herbalists, to two "big name" homeopaths (in the SF area),
                              >> to shamans, to psychic healers...you name it...Well...who finally
                              >> got the correct remedy?...Mr. Carl Upton a British dowser (since
                              >> deceased) without ever meeting me, just through the post get Tuber.
                              >> bov. 1m and I haven't had a recurrence since (15 years)...So much
                              >> for worthless little pills (and dowsing).


                              >It is wise not to generalise about any class of practitioner. Each is
                              >different. Carl Upton was a well-known "psionic doctor" (one who uses
                              >dowsing) to whom through an intermediary Dr Helen Ford I was able to
                              >explain how I removed miasms - using orthobionomy, a type of miniature
                              >chiropractic allied to purposive healing.



                              I was merely attempting to demonstrate that I had every expectation of

                              being helped by "big names" and more holistically conventional

                              treatments, and it was someone I more-or-less tried on a lark who won

                              the day.

                              >The homoeopaths I've known have always gone on to adopt companion
                              >practices, which I suspect supports my feeling that homoeopathy has holes
                              >in its repertoire when it comes to people. I have an immense respect for
                              >it and would dearly love to help fill in these holes. I regard it as a
                              >friend and colleague and feel somehow it ought to be a complete thing and
                              >not require supplementation.



                              I don't think there is any totally complete medical system, and Hahnemann

                              himself says near the enf of the Organon that a physican should use other

                              modalities to assist cure: hydrotherapy, Mezmerism, diet, manipulation, etc.


                              >An avenue might be through radionic or vibronic homoeopathy but I don't
                              >know if I'm allowed to mention those on the list !


                              I have a Rae Potency preparer and broadcaster...



                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X