No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HANS POSTED:"................... I may have an access you don't have (working in the pharma industry and all that )................................................. ................................"

    England Journal of Medicine and PLoS Medicine, which admitted that pharmaceutical sales reps are trained in tactics that are on par with some of the most potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the world!
    The idea that reps provide some kind of valuable, informative service to physicians is total fiction, created and perpetuated by the drug industry, to keep this deadly, but profitable, scheme going.

    Back on the subject of Homeopathy:
    Scientific Studies

    * Fact - In 2005 the World Health Organisation brought out a draft report which showed homeopathy was beneficial causing Big Pharma to panic and The Lancet to bring out an editorial entitled 'The End of Homeopathy'.

    * Fact - In 2005 The Lancet tried to destroy homeopathy but were only looking at 8 inconclusive trials out of 110 of which 102 were positive. This was a fraudulent analysis.
    "The meta-analysis at the centre of the controversy is based on 110 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and 110 clinical trials of allopathy (conventional medicine), which are said to be matched. These were reduced to 21 trials of homeopathy and 9 of conventional medicine of 'higher quality' and further reduced to 8 and 6 trials, respectively, which were 'larger, higher quality'. The final analysis which concluded that 'the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects' was based on just the eight 'larger, higher quality' clinical trials of homeopathy. The Lancet's press release did not mention this, instead giving the impression that the conclusions were based on all 110 trials."

    * Fact - There have been many clinical trials that prove homeopathy works. In the past 24 years there have been more than 180 controlled, and 118 randomized, trials into homeopathy, which were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In each case, the researchers concluded that the benefits of homeopathy went far beyond that which could be explained purely by placebo.

    * Fact 35 - The Bristol Homeopathic Hospital carried out a study published in November 2005 of 6500 patients receiving homeopathic treatment. There was an overall improvement in health of 70% of them ( .

    * Fact - Homeopathy can never be properly tested through double blind randomised trials because each prescription is individualised as every patient is unique. Therefore 10 people with arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine.

    * Fact - Homeopathic medicines work even better on animals and babies than on adults, proving this cannot be placebo.

    * Fact - Scientists agree that if and when homeopathy is accepted by the scientific community it will turn established science on its head.
    "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


    • Orthodox Medicine Opposing Homeopathy?

      * Fact - In the United States in the early 1900s there were 22 homeopathic medical schools and over 100 homeopathic hospitals, 60 orphanages and old people's homes and 1,000+ homeopathic pharmacies.

      * Fact - Members of the American Medical Association had great animosity towards homeopathy after its formation in 1847 and it was decided to purge all local medical societies of physicians who were homeopaths.

      * Fact - Big Pharma does not want the Public to find out how well homeopathy works!
      Former Shill for Big Pharma Tells the Truth About Drug Testing

      * Fact -The current war in Iraq has killed 4,000 Americans. Just one drug from Merck has killed over 50,000 (and that's a conservative estimate). That's more than ten times the number of Americans killed in our current war!
      "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


      • Gina, please keep your spam in your own thread. We are trying to have a debate here.

        You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.


        • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
          Gina, please keep your spam in your own thread. We are trying to have a debate here.

          That's a joke (from Roger the Dodger himself).

          We are still waiting for some comparable evidence Mr Hans. I have some here in front of me - would you like me to post it?
          These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.


          • If you don't like what I have posted, feel free to post your own.

            You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.


            • I don't know if I like it or not - I can't access it - and neither can anyone else!
              These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.


              • Does homeopathy work?

                In the early 90's I saw an advert for Homeopathy evening classes - so my wife and I decided we should attend and learn what was all about. Well fairly soon a knee problem that had bothered Celia was cured quickly and fast with one pill! My chronic headaches of some 30 years went away and so on.
                Having seen the EVIDENCE for my self I then went and studied the subject at professional level in one of the London colleges and I am now a licensed and registered Homeopath.
                You say that "I believe in reason and I believe in evidence". If you study homeopathy you soon find that it is all based on EVIDENCE and REASON. What other evidence does one require when some who is sick is cured literally before your eyes? The Materia Medica - properties of materials - used in Homeopathy is all based on the experience of volunteers and patients.
                The principle of homeopathy is based on the trial of substances which having produced a set of symptoms in volunteers, cured a similar set of symptoms in the sick. Some many years afterwards it was only perhaps by chance that it was discovered that when you dilute the substance it still continues to work - but reduces the unwanted effects. How this happens we still do not know exactly. But just because we cannot explain something, it does not mean that the effect is not there, when we see it ourselves.
                Did Radio waves not exist before Marconi discovered them? Do we know how all things work? When we think we know the theory of something, how long does it take before that theory is replaced by another? Have you had any personal experience of Homeopathy? Or was the comments that included homeopathy purely based on personal
                thought and reason?
                Of course, I accept that homeopathy 'works' in the sense that people feel better, BUT I question whether:
                1) It works better than a placebo
                2) It works differently than a placebo.
                All the evidence is that the answer to both questions is 'No' See this large-scale examination of 110 trials for instance.
                1- Almost anything can act as a placebo - the more complicated the greater the effect! However, there are two groups that you cannot fool with placebo:
                A- Infants
                B- Animals
                And Homoeopathy works on both.
                In fact BBC 2's QED Prog Circa 1991-2 ran a programme on it showing how a herd of dairy cows with mastitis was cured with one dose of a homoeopathic remedy! In fact so far as I was concerned it was QED for Homeopathy.
                2- The article in the Lancet was discredited as it was proved to be extremely biased and unsubstantiated. The Society of Homeopaths replied to the Lancet article - please see here.
                Neither infants or animals are in a position to give objective information to researchers, so the results of tests on infants and animals are interpreted by people who believe in the efficacy of homeopathy so that they are simply influenced by the placebo effect again.
                Show me a large-scale double blind experiment that has demonstrated that homeopathy has a greater benefit than a placebo.
                OK I give you the QED's work. You may still be able to get a copy from BBC 2.
                A large dairy herd was divided in two. Each had half of segregated field and own trough. In each a small vial of liquid was poured - one was marked A, the other B. The code as to which was the remedy and which was distilled water was in a sealed envelope and was give to the producer for safe keeping. After some weeks (6?) the QED team came back and asked the farmer of the result. One field has some 19 cases of mastitis and the other only 1. When they opened the envelope, the first field had had distilled water and the other with only one incidence had received the homeopathic remedy.
                So in fairness, please explain how one could deduct that the herd with one case of mastitis was due to the effect of placebo. Could the cows understand what was happening? And this is not a unique case.

                Posted by Roger Darlington on October 11, 2008 08:46 AM
                "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


                • scientific medicine

                  Originally posted by moopet View Post
                  Placebo controls are necessary because there is a placebo effect.
                  Showing that you are better than placebo, which in turn may be better than nothing, is better than showing you are better than nothing, which may not be better than placebo. Placebo is, to all intents, the standard for biochemical "nothing", because it's helping to rule out psychological effects.
                  It's the best we can do, isn't it?
                  when remedies are given to plants and work, is that placebo?
                  those opposed to homoeopathy through ignorance must believe all homoeopaths are great magicians, who fool their clients by placebo.
                  homoeopathic vets are greater magicians, because they are able to fool animals.
                  agrohomoeopathy must be the greatest magic of all, for they can fool plants with placebo.
                  those who believe that are more superstitious than those they like to dismiss as placebo prescribers.
                  but let us investigate the placebo effect and homoeopathic microdoses to see if the placebo effect is really a valid means for dismissal.
                  The Powerful Placebo

                  Van Wijk and Wiegant (1997) examined the validity of the similia principle. With their research they showed that ‘if low doses of harmful conditions are administered according to the similia principle the capacity for survival (expressed in terms of development of tolerance) is stimulated at cellular level and protector proteins are also stimulated.’ The research gives an important indication of a regulatory mechanism on which the similia principle is founded. Eskinazi (1999) expounded on the scientific state of affairs with regard to the theoretical objections to homeopathy. With modern insights there is little left of the theoretical objections. First the objection to the theory that pathogenic substances can also cure. The author gives and extensive list of examples in which this principle also applies in conventional medicine. This principle has also now been recognised in cellular biology and is known as hormesis. The most surprising thing is that it was a conventional scientist who removed the objection to high dilutions.
                  Recent articles by two research groups have raised doubts about the scale and even about the existence of the placebo effect. Kienle (1995) carried out a critical analysis of Beecher’s fundamental research which produced the initial concept of the ‘Powerful Placebo’. She describes a multitude of weaknesses in these studies and demonstrates that all Beecher’s so-called proofs of the placebo effect could have other explanations. From an entirely different point of view, Danish researchers Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche (2001) reviewed 130 clinical trials in which a placebo was compared with an experimental treatment.
                  They concluded on this basis that is was unlikely that the so-called placebo effect could lead to significant changes in the parameters of physical diseases, but that it can lead to significant changes in psychological disturbances, such as anxiety. Given the notion that a placebo is in essence a psychological phenomenon (for example, the thought and feeling that you are receiving something which will probably help), the researchers’ conclusion that placebos only have a significant psychological and not a physical effect, is understandable.
                  Based on the arguments raised above, it is clear that the theory of ontological reductionism fails on internal and external conceptual grounds, as well as empirical grounds. It is also demonstrated that there is evidence of a working mechanism underlying the similia law. Finally it is clear that the alternative explanation – i.e. the placebo effect – for a subsequent effect in studies on the effect of a homeopathic treatment, is unlikely.
                  This disposes of the theoretical obstacle to the acceptance of homoeopathy, namely that a homoeopathic treatment cannot be effective because the working mechanism is not compatible with recognised scientific, in this case, biological, chemical and pharmacological theories and insights.
                  Furthermore there is the discovery that many scientific facts argue in favour of the theory of ontological holism. This raises the question of why it is not more widely embraced as a theory in science. In our view this is due to the deep-seated belief that effects in nature can only be attributed to material phenomena. Many people are unaware that this belief was not held throughout the majority of human history.
                  From Plato (427 - 347 BC) and Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) to the middle ages however the notion has existed in scientific history that there is a world of ideas which, as causal principles, give shape to things in nature. These ideas or universals were seen as complex, differentiated systems of forces which gave an organism such as a plant or a human being its shape and enabled it to keep it.
                  Both Plato and Aristotle maintained that such causal principles existed, and that they could be known and understood: according to Plato, by looking in thought into a spiritual world of ideas and according to Aristotle by turning one’s sights on the world of the individual things (Hartmann, 1941; Kienle, 1998).
                  In the medieval debate on universals, this world of ideas was not denied, but Realists and Nominalists argued about whether these causal principles could be known to man. The debate was eventually won by the Nominalists and the question was answered in the negative.
                  The next historical milestone was the work of Francis Bacon in the 17th century. Bacon argued in his ‘Novum Organon’ that the task of the scientist should not be the broad sweep of ideas, but careful observation and experimentation. A final phase in this historical development came in the second half of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century. In this period, following on from the previous historical views that man could not know the causal principles of forms (universals debate) and that it was not the task of the scientist to know these principles (Bacon), the existence of this body of causal principles was denied. Rudolf Virchow (1907) summarised the biological and medical view of his time as follows:
                  Mechanical Reductionism

                  ‘Modern medicine has defined its view as mechanical, its aim as establishing a physics of organisms. This has shown that life is merely an expression of a sum of phenomena each of which proceeds separately according to the normal physical and chemical (that is to say mechanical) laws. It denies the existence of an independent life force and natural curative power.’
                  (Virchow R. ‘Cellular Pathology.’)

                  This summary conclusion illustrates the historical steps which led to the gradual denial of the existence of causal principles and the reduction of the cause of natural phenomena to the functioning of material particles. Causal-mechanistic or ontological reductionist thinking is an expression of this development. We have demonstrated above that this theory is not tenable on a number of grounds. To arrive at a reasonable alternative we have to look more closely at the question of causality.
                  If an experienced tennis player hits a perfect shot at Wimbledon there is, at the physiological level, a sequence of biochemical reactions in time. In this case there must be a transfer of information which causes all the biochemical steps in time to be attuned to each other so that ultimately the entire process of preparation and execution lead to the ball hitting exactly the right place at exactly the right time. We could call this a ‘time Gestalt’.
                  In a general sense all this applies afresh to a subsequent but different perfect shot in another place. However, since this is another type of shot there is a different ‘time Gestalt’. In this ‘Gestalt’ we can distinguish two causal layers: a vertical and a horizontal layer. In the horizontal layer there seems at first sight to be a cause-effect chain because, for example, increasing the hormone level leads to an increase in the glucose level in the blood. Each preceding ‘cause’ in time leads to a subsequent ‘effect’ in time.
                  However, on further consideration there is a problem here which was previously identified by Bertrand Russell. That is that an effect which precedes something in time, no longer exists when the effect occurs. The cause has already disappeared. How can a cause, which no longer exists bring about an effect? (Kienle, unpublished).
                  To solve this problem the scientific literature turns to the concept of ‘information’. The information is supposedly transferred from one stage to the following stage. This brings us to the second, vertical layer of causality. In the case of the perfect shot, but also in other self-regulatory skills, and the self-organising physiological processes which can only be understood in terms of the species, there is a hierarchically higher-ranked principle that provides the coherence between, say, biochemical stages in time, but which also provides the context for the object of all the processes as a whole, namely performing this specific tennis shot at this moment or creating this specific tissue structure.
                  The principle also provides an explanation for the transfer of information between the various stages in time in the horizontal causality layer. This higher-ranked principle is not immediately perceptible to the senses, but is manifest in bringing coherence in time and space.
                  Homeopathy and also anthroposophic medicine assume this sort of higher-ranked and forming principle in nature. The Pharmaceutical processes used in these forms of complementary medicine, are aimed at releasing these forming or in-form-ing principles from matter, which is set in time and space. In this way these matter-less forming forces can be used as medication. From this point of view it is also conceivable that there are medications in which no material molecules remain.

                  Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.


                  • Dear Kaviraj
                    you posted:"when remedies are given to plants and work, is that placebo?
                    those opposed to homoeopathy through ignorance must believe all homoeopaths are great magicians, who fool their clients by placebo.".........................................

                    Good point! A great book called THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS- by peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. Goes into the ultra sensitive energies that plants have regards to reaction/stimuli.More sensitive than Humans or animals have. These have been tested (more detail in the book) with amazing results I was not even aware of.
                    To have such ultra sensitivity makes these plants a great 'patient' (test subject) for homeopathic remedies.
                    "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


                    • For the skeptics on board
                      Homeopathy quotes
                      "Let me explain why I am opposed to vaccination and why I have had none of my four children immunised for anything, all of whom are healthy.......My objections are that it does not work; it is unnatural, that the human race has survived healthily for countless generations without them and that homeopathy provides a better alternative that is both safe and effective. Yet, I am not typical because many of those who oppose vaccination know nothing about homeopathy, and as you say, they object for political or religious reasons, that lie beyond the scope of medical practice. However, once you use homeopathy and can rely on it, as I have done for over twenty years, then one can see the dangers and pitfalls of vaccination as another Russian roulette game not worth the risk.....Doctors essentially believe the pro-vaccine propaganda and just keep repeating it like a mantra without looking at the facts. It is like a form of voluntary brainwashing. In truth, every major infection for which vaccines exist was originally in massive decline before a single vaccine was introduced. This certainly applies to Diphtheria, Tuberculosis, Whooping Cough and Measles." [eLetters 2000 CMA] Vaccination: the wider picture? In response to: Vaccination: refuting the refusals by Peter Morrell
                      "Not one case receiving homeopathic care died, while the "old school" doctors lost twenty percent of their (smallpox) cases.....I gave about three hundred internal vaccinations, five to adults acting as practical nurses; to the man who installed the telephone and lights in the pest-house; to mothers who slept with their children while they had smallpox in its severest form. All of these people, exposed daily, were immune."--W. L. Bonnell, MD
                      One physician in a Pittsburgh hospital asked a nurse if she knew anything better than what he was doing, because he was losing many cases. "Yes, Doctor, stop aspirin and go down to a homeopathic pharmacy, and get homeopathic remedies." The Doctor replied: "But that is homeopathy." "I know it, but the homeopathic doctors for whom I have nursed have not lost a single case."--W. F. Edmundson, MD, Pittsburgh. Treatment of epidemics with Homeopathy by Julian Winston
                      "In the records of three years of Diphtheria in Broome County, NY from 1862 to 1864, there was a report of an 83.6% mortality rate among the allopaths and a 16.4% mortality rate among the Homeopaths. (Bradford)."---Julian Winston
                      "When the (1813 typhus) epidemic came through Leipzig as the army pulled back from the east, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, was able to treat 180 cases of Typhus-- losing but two. This, at a time when the conventional treatments were having a mortality rate of over 30%....When Cholera finally struck Europe in 1831 the mortality rate (under conventional treatment) was between 40% (Imperial Council of Russia)to 80% (Osler's Practice of Medicine). Out of five people who contracted Cholera, two to four of them died under regular treatment.Dr. Quin, in London, reported the mortality in the ten homeopathic hospitals in 1831-32 as 9%.... In 1854 a Cholera Epidemic struck London. This was a historically important epidemic in that it was the first time the medical community was able to trace the outbreak to a source (a public water pump), and when the pump was closed, the epidemic soon ceased. The House of Commons asked for a report about the various methods of treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, the homeopathic figures were not included. The House of Lords asked for an explanation, and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included in the report, it would "skew the results." The suppressed report revealed that under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while under homeopathic care the mortality was only 9%."--Julian Winston
                      "During the 1850s, there were several epidemics of Yellow Fever in the southern states. This disease was eventually found to be transmitted by mosquito. Osler, says that the allopathic mortality from Yellow Fever is between 15-85%. Holcome, a homeopath, reported in 1853 a mortality of 6.43% in Natchez, and Dr. Davis, another homeopath in Natchez, reported 5.73%. In 1878 the mortality in New Orleans was 50% under allopathic care, and 5.6% (in 1,945 cases in the same epidemic) with homeopathic care."---Julian Winston
                      "The Journal of the American Institute for Homeopathy, May, 1921, had a long article about the use of homeopathy in the flu epidemic. Dr. T A McCann, from Dayton, Ohio reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically had a mortality rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%. This last figure was supported by Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) who collected 26,795 cases of flu treated with homeopathy with the above result..... Dr. Herbert A. Roberts from Derby, CT, said that 30 physicians in Connecticut responded to his request for data. They reported 6,602 cases with 55 deaths, which is less than 1%. Dr. Roberts was working as a physician on a troop ship during WWI. He had 81 cases of flu on the way over to Europe. He reported, "All recovered and were landed. Every man received homeopathic treatment. One ship lost 31 on the way."---Julian Winston
                      "What appears to emerge from the study is: a) Nosodes can effectively stop, in its tracks, an outbreak of a highly transmissible disease (viz kennel cough). b) That it does so, in this case, more effectively than the presently available vaccines. c) That vaccination impairs the ability of the animal to respond to the nosode."--Christoper Day, MA, Vet.M.B., M.R.C.VS. Vet.F.F.Hom (What Vets Don't Tell you about Vaccination, p 238 by Catherine O'Driscol)
                      "John Saxton MRCVS VetMFHom presented a paper in 1991 describing the use of the canine distemper nosode in disease control...The results showed that, of dogs kept in the kennes for 8 days, 11.67% showed clinical signs of distemper on the 5th day prior to the introduction of nosodes, dropping to 4.36% after the nosodes were introduced. Where the entire kennel population was taken into account...the incidence of distemper dropped from 8.05% to 2.81% afetr the introduction of nosodes."---(What Vets Don't Tell you about Vaccination, p 240 by Catherine O'Driscol)
                      "Homeopathy is wholly capable of satisfying the therapeutic demands of this age better than any other system or school of medicine."-----Dr. Charles Menninger M.D., Founder Menninger Clinic
                      "Homeopathy .... cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and most complete medical science."
                      Mahatama Gandhi
                      “effective natural remedies that have no side effects"
                      Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
                      Professor U. of Illinois Medical School and best-selling author
                      "Homeopathy is the safest and more reliable approach to ailments and has withstood the assaults of established medical practice for over 100 years."----Yehudi Menuhin, World famous violinist
                      "The introduction of homeopathy forced the old school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business. You may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of allopaths (the orthodox physicians to destroy it."----Mark Twain
                      "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


                      • Barbershop Science
                        Whoever said the pen is mightier than something else overlooked the mightiest of all and that is the scissors. If we should say that disease is triggered by iatrogenic or immaterial causes, we are not more of a trimmer of circumstances than such a barber whose clips are said to be scientific. Maybe they are. Most barbers though, are artists, although some consider themselves scientists.
                        We have listed phenomena that appear before medical catastrophes. They clip these catastrophes from events, with barbershop science. They lather events with the soap of their explanations and then shave them clean of all details, except for the whiskers of convenience, which suit their style of clipping. It is a neat and well-trimmed account. There is however a smell, which we identify as too much Old Spice.

                        Here is another complaint about records and the quackery resulting from it. Error is the name of the beast and is an all too common human characteristic, no matter the denial that doctors suffer from it.

                        Medical data errors 'risk lives'.
                        The NHS deficit tops £500m.
                        Patient care is being risked by hospital bosses sending medical notes abroad to be typed up, a union says. Public sector union Unison said record keeping was being outsourced to workers in India, South Africa and the Philippines to help save money. But Unison warned mistakes had been made in typing up audio files dictated by hospital doctors, which could risk patient lives. The government urged staff to alert NHS trusts if errors were being made.

                        Most Common Errors
                        Hypertension (high blood pressure) mixed-up with hypotension (low blood pressure)
                        Urological (urinary tract) used instead of the word for the nervous system, neurological
                        Below knee amputation referred to as a ‘baloney’ amputation
                        Dosages mixed up with number such as 15 transcribed as 50
                        Unison, which represents nurses and non-clinical staff such as medical secretaries, highlighted a series of common blunders, including the word hypertension (high blood pressure) instead of hypotension (low blood pressure).
                        Urological was also mixed up with neurological, while mistakes were made with dosage figures.
                        The union said, when recordings were not clear, hospital-based medical secretaries could check with the doctors. But they warned that when the service was outsourced this was not possible. It also said the secretaries often knew something about a patient's medical history. Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said:

                        "Lives are being put at risk by hospitals desperate to save money. Patients' medical records must be absolutely up-to-date and accurate. The consequences of typing errors are too frightening to contemplate. The government has to rethink this latest idea that medical typing can be done at a distance without risking patient health. It is ridiculous and is a step too far."

                        Companies are thought to be approaching trusts, saying outsourcing medical secretary work will be a way of saving money. Several pilots are under way in London, Norfolk, Wiltshire, Cornwall and Bedfordshire. The NHS is facing a £512m deficit with nearly a third of NHS organisations failing to balance its books last year.
                        Over 30,000 medical secretaries are employed by the NHS to keep medical records up to date. It is not known how many have been laid off in the recent wave of job cuts - over 12,000 post closures have been announced since the beginning of the year.
                        But Unison fears the trials will become permanent arrangements and lead to secretaries losing their jobs. The Department of Health said it had confidence in NHS trusts over medical records. But a spokeswoman added:

                        "If Unison has concerns that incidents affecting patient safety have not been acted upon, then we urge them to share this information with the NHS trusts concerned so that they can investigate them."

                        Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said:

                        "It is deeply concerning that life-threatening mistakes are being made in an effort to cut costs. Standards should be maintained irrespective of provider and should not be compromised for short-term cost cutting measures."
                        (BBC News 10/07)

                        The answer is so simple that it seems immediately acceptable, if we accept that the obvious is the solution to all problems. The science of today is relegated to superstition tomorrow. Today’s superstition will be the science of tomorrow. To all our colleagues working with and within the healing arts we say: don’t be desperados of disregard or if so, to your own and your patient’s peril.
                        What use is a medicine, the effects of which are worse than the disease it is supposed to cure? It becomes a plague, rather than a blessing. If dope peddlers offer such a plague to our children, we rightfully arrest them. Just because the Pharmaceutical Industry has social and perhaps also legal sanction, it does not automatically confer the right on it to poison the people, either with or without consent. It has moreover the duty of care for our health – they exist for the very reason. Hence to neglect that duty in exchange for the possibility to willingly or unwillingly poison the people for profit is tantamount to a capital crime.

                        We see the industry consistently publish positive reports on the use of its medicines. Yet if you ask any doctor, their efficacy is close to nil. Recent admissions (2005) in the press from industry captains have been circulating widely. 'Ninety percent of medicine does nothing at all for disease,' they admit. Their medical knowledge and industry is in crisis, while they close their eyes to their own laws and principles and refuse to study their books.
                        The Arndt-Schultz-law is ignored completely and they never read their pharmacopoeia, which could teach them the cause of 37 ‘new’ diseases. They have not gone so far as to admit they cause disease, for then they would have to admit responsibility for those new diseases, discovered since the Pharmaceutical boom of the sixties.
                        They flout all scientific rules and claim their medicine to be scientific, evidence-based. We have studied the evidence and find it, besides contradictory to their claims, also entirely misunderstood, dangerous and therefore, ill-conceived.

                        Their scientific and intellectual integrity is at stake here. They will have to convince the public of the contrary. Anyone who has listened and heard their ‘refutations’, has heard offers of apology and mere justifications. Has heard how they ignore that, which stares them in the face; the patients and their experiences.
                        We do not believe in the existence of incurable disease. God is love, sweetness and harmony. He is certainly not revenge. The latter conclusion is inevitable, if we consider he gave us incurable diseases.
                        Hence, when they call the disease incurable, they factually say they cannot cure it and declare therewith their own incompetence to the entire world.
                        There may however be incurable cases. They either die or remain stationary under palliation.

                        Objectivity or Subjectivity
                        The goal of science is to acquire knowledge and certainty. However, that knowledge must be gotten in a particular manner. For that purpose there is the scientific method, which is based on inductive reasoning. It requires exact observation, correct interpretation of the observed facts, with a view to understanding them in relation to each other and their cause.
                        It must also rationally explain those facts, by referring them to their real cause or the law pertaining to them. Lastly, you come to scientific construction, which consists of putting the facts in such coordination that the system reached shall agree with the reality. To do this, we are supposed to remain objective and have exact observation.

                        Let us first examine what is the true value of this highly praised objectivity. In general, it is postulated that objectivity is superior to subjectivity. There are two types of subjectivity, which can be termed primary and secondary subjectivity.
                        Anything known through direct experience – such as when I burn myself or whether I will get married or not married tomorrow or that I will go for a swim or not – is primary subjective and reliable.
                        Opinions, beliefs and concepts are secondary and therefore unreliable, like speculating the burn will not develop a blister under cold water or my future wife will not want to marry me or the weather will be too lousy and cold for a swim.

                        In the same vein, there are two so-called objectivities, again primary and secondary. It is assumed that anything directly demonstrated objectively – meaning here pertaining to the object – such as the existence of x-rays or that water is wet and fire hot, is primary and reliable. Anything theorised about the nature of x-rays, the properties of water or fire is secondary and therefore unreliable.

                        Even the existence of x-ray can only be proven by direct subjective experience, such as when an x-ray photo confirms the experience of pain in a broken bone. Any other proof comes from prolonged exposure, causing burns on the skin and loss of hair – both again subjective experiences, which can be verified by the senses.
                        Those senses – unreliable themselves, as is evident from the limited range of for instance sight – cannot furnish us with reliable data, except as a confirmation of our subjective experience. You can also not prove the wetness of water, other than through direct experience, which is completely subjective
                        The objectivity derived from such perception must necessarily equally often or always be unreliable, seen ‘objectively’, so to speak. The argument that x-rays can be made visible by a machine does not hold, because that machine has to be examined by those same imperfect senses.

                        We are also confronted by the reality of the observer, who has to be taken into account. Very few people are capable of appreciating the height of that reality. The observer is not and cannot be an algebraic unit. In chemistry and physics, it apparently does not matter who conducts the experiment or is the observer, as all arrive at the same impeccable conclusions, while bypassing their prejudices. After all, chemistry and physics are exact sciences, or so the theory goes.
                        However, each scientist – in fact everybody – is limited in several ways. He suffers from four basic human defects.
                        The first is that he is bound to make mistakes.
                        The second is that he is invariably under illusion.
                        The third is that he has the tendency to cheat.
                        The fourth is that his senses are limited.
                        His illusion is manifest by the brainwashing his culture, education and parents have exerted on him. Hence, he is limited in his capacity to abstract data from nature, as he trails his defects and personal history into every research project.
                        Therefore, a physicist or other scientist with less prejudice – due to less education or brainwashing – and less personal rigidity, can solve problems that are beyond the scope of a more rigid scientist, who has all the brainwashing blinker degrees. In short, the observer has to always take into account his personal bias and limits. Since he is not capable of doing this – being not outside himself and having limited senses – his conclusions are therefore always imperfect.
                        We can also not claim perfection in our delineation of the disease conundrum but we have the advantage of less brainwashing and no supposed ‘scientific’ blinkers to limit our vision. We have been schooled in the school of hard knocks in medicine, where the work makes the master and his observations truly count for something.

                        Properly formulated, it is clear that primary objectivity is at best the closest attempt to the ‘objective’ aspect of primary subjectivity. It is the attempt to rationally describe the subjective experience. When for instance two people experience the effects of the same situation or substance, their experiences will necessarily be different, due to their personal bias and physiological differences. Their attempts to describe their experiences is to try to be objective about their own reactions. Nonetheless, their subjective experience is the rock-solid foundation on which to build their so-called objective assessment. In medicine, the experience of the patient – equally subjective – is also the rock-solid foundation on which to instigate therapy. It should be clear that primary subjectivity is far superior to all other considerations, including the so-called objective assessment.
                        Equally, scientists cannot or will not accept as real – factual or truthful – any phenomenon outside the realm of their sensory perception, as their science is empirical. Those senses themselves are prone to limitation too, as we shall explain.
                        The eye needs sufficient light to be able to see anything. The nose needs smell, to perceive anything, and so on. Even our sense of touch is limited and gross, for what appears to be smooth to the touch is revealed as a Himalayan relief under the microscope. Hence even the empirical method is completely subjective.
                        It is entirely subjective for instance to not want to see the power of homoeopathic medicines. They have an inability to see the subjectivity of the idea that those remedies are considered placebo and having no intrinsic power of their own.
                        Medical science is itself incapable of functioning according to its own foundations, since they would have to declare their data as unreliable secondary subjectivity and thus of no significance. Rigorously applied that would be the only conclusion. They do not observe nature;. they watch the parts perform.
                        Hence the only workable hypothesis to come to scientific understanding is to apply the subjective mind and the discriminating intelligence to assess the situation we are confronted with on it’s own merits. Only then will we be able to understand all correlative bits of information in their totality. Only with that totality do we come close to determination of the curative agent, which must by necessity be a mirror image of the totality we assessed.

                        Belief, Hope & Veneer.

                        After having scrutinised the so-called scientific, evidence-based foundations of modern medicine as practised by the orthodox, we must conclude that it is far from rational, anything but based on solid evidence, while the evidence presented leaves everything to be wished for. Their pseudo-system is based on belief, sustained by hope and presented with the thinnest of ethical veneers. The Church of Medical Science follows the Holy Trinity of Belief, Hope and Veneer.
                        Their belief rests in superstitions, which we have scrutinised on their own merits and found severely wanting.
                        Their hope is resting on the assumption that technology will provide them with all the answers, as soon as the instruments to detect disease have become sophisticated enough. Their hope is also vested in the power of ever-newer-stronger drugs to conquer the numbers on the machines.
                        The veneer is in advertising their hellish drugs and non-existent skills as patent facts of science, where all they do is experiment on the sick. This they dare to call rational, evidence-based medicine.
                        While many hold it to be the ultimate in human knowledge about life and the living, we discover it deals in death and extends the suffering of the dying.

                        The Gospel of Pasteur coming on the heels of the outdated Hippocratic notions is blindly followed without any consideration of the facts before their very eyes, which tell them the idea is plain wrong. Wearing the blinkers of doctrine and hypnosis, while caught in the linear tunnel vision of direct palpable cause and effect, the plain obvious is unwittingly overlooked.
                        It is time modern medicine undergoes a revolution in thinking and adopts the lateral view of dynamic cause and effect, which is shown by internal and external signs and symptoms.

                        It is time the doctors realise that only the patient really knows what is wrong with him and where and in which manner. Without listening to the patient, the doctor knows little or nothing, unless he is very skilled and has great experience.
                        The idea that there exists some ideal average of health is another superstition, which we have shown to rest on the thinnest of assumptions on what constitutes health and is far removed from everyday reality. The arrogance with which moreover each sorry case of disease is treated in treadmill, conveyor-belt, profit-driven fashion, with a disdain as if the patient is at fault for falling sick, is equally appalling.
                        Every alternative that does not use heavy drugs or subjects the patient to hardship is deemed quackery, notwithstanding impressive results to the contrary. If at any time someone dies under such ministrations, they immediately call for a total ban on any alternative, conveniently forgetting that they kill one in every 160 with the side effects of their drugs and never be called to task.
                        Their skewered view of the reality of human suffering from disease as a mechanical problem has countless victims – to the tune of half a billion worldwide in each single year. Yet they dare to call an entire profession to task when a single death occurs – regardless whether he is guilty, they declare him so on the grounds that he did not give their type of poison or is not taught in their school of thought.
                        The audacity with which they try to throw sand in the eyes of the public and the judiciary regarding scientific medicine – they are ignorant of the subject anyway, is the assumption – is more than appalling; it is criminal.
                        It is due to their quackery that these people have suffered untold miseries.
                        It is due to their ministrations that so many have developed impaired immune responses and simply died.
                        It is due to their inadequacies that there are now more diseases than ever.
                        It is due to their ‘fixing’ the not broken that crime and social violence have assumed more than epidemic proportions, with an 800% increase since 1942, when their vaccination craze began in earnest.
                        It due to their causing brain-damage in innocent children that present leaders are actually going to war. They threaten world-peace by actively promoting terrorism and advocating the use of ‘tactical nukes’ to start WW III. All in the name of ‘spreading democracy’.

                        Yet when presented with the facts, they deny the obvious correlations, because the contemplation of its truth alone is too much for even their gross sensibilities.
                        The realisation that perhaps they have not been so scientific or that their evidence is far from evident and thus mere quicksand on which to build, is of course a sobering one, but nonetheless true.
                        We may conclude that possibly their system should be declared illegal, since it has no standing, no sound doctrine and as stated before, is based on faith, hope and veneer.
                        There are no legal reasons to maintain it as the prominent doctrine, with a monopoly on the decisions regarding our health.
                        That decision must always rest on the choice of the individual whose health is concerned.
                        It is a right we have by Constitution and Universal Declaration and cannot at any time be subject to the arbitrary decision of any one doctor or industry, of whichever persuasion.

                        In the case our opponents decide to not agree with such proposals and instead want to maintain the status-quo, they must of course reckon with countless litigations, since their method has been extensively shown to rest on nothing but assumptions and thus remains indefensible.
                        We have seen from the examples of cases taking place in Germany and before the International Criminal Court in The Hague that such is entirely possible. This will only lead to enormous losses in revenue and possible bankruptcy of the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Empire.
                        Bankrupt already in principles and practice, it will be the nail in the coffin of the industry. It can be buried right next to Pasteur and his aberrational Gospel
                        Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.


                        • The Hippocratic or Hypocritical Oath
                          We discover they pay but lip-service to the well-being of the patient, violate every rule in the Oath of Hippocrates and pay scant attention to the results – either short or long-term – of their haphazard, speculative, experimental and dangerous treatment. Neglectful of the basic needs of the patient, they stuff them with atrocious food, which does not serve in strengthening the sick, but fill them with such loathing, they weaken and suffer more from under-nourishment.
                          While the use of the knife, fire and the means for both abortion and euthanasia are forbidden by the Hippocratic Oath, the knife and burning are their first lines of defence in many cases and abortion and euthanasia have become the order of the day.
                          Instead of protecting life, they engage in its destruction, all in the name of progress in science.
                          It reminds us of a certain period in history which we vowed to never repeat.
                          Yet we find that stand-over tactics are used to force the wish of the doctor over the wish of the patient – he is threatened with certain death if he does not comply with an expensive and often unnecessary operation.
                          No explanation is offered for the real reasons the doctor wants to operate – teaching the boys how to cut; adding to the surgeon’s own glory; adding to the surgeon’s purse; sprucing up the financial position of the hospital or simply reducing the waiting lists that are as long as the surgeon’s arm – there is no visible indication, other than large amounts of money changing hands. The notions of secrecy and conspiracy are overwhelming, yet no scrutiny is exerted over hospitals and clinics.
                          Recent admissions that 90% of their dope has no value other than filling company coffers and that reduction of intake of antibiotics by four to seven days does not lead to less cures, are signs that the game is up. We have had the wool pulled over our eyes for too long and no longer take it lying down.
                          We demand justice for and freedom from the suffering and compensation for those that have undergone their useless treatment and those that lost loved ones because of that same treatment.
                          A Ritual Sacrifice at The Black Mass
                          Where they denounce the religious, they believe in even more elusive Devils –
                          bacteria, vira, bacilli and microbes, of which they have become the self-appointed priests. Pasteur is the Moses of this religion. Pasteur’s Ten Commandments which he brought down from the Mountain of the Lab must be followed, on the threat of excommunication. Their other devils we met already – Virus and Bacterium, Bacillus and Microbe. The Altar of Medical Science is deemed worth any sacrifice – even that of human life – which is offered in a Black Mass to the prevailing Devil perceived in the disease, which may go by any fancy Greek/Latin name, as long as he fits in one of the accepted Classes: Bacterium, Bacillus, Microbe, Virus or Fungus and is present in large enough numbers to cause panic and subsequent ritual placation.
                          All this happens, notwithstanding the prohibition of human sacrifice.
                          I have compared modern medicine to its medieval counterpart. I should actually consider it as belonging in further recesses of time and typify it as pre-primitive.
                          Although a fool’s set of scales may tilt to the heavier side, one must carefully watch what has been put into it. All progress is from the outrageous to the commonplace. Stones don’t fall from the sky and if they do, they are all just meteors. Diseases don’t come from drugs and if they do, they’re only minor side effects.
                          We know how hypnosis works; if you insist long enough, you begin to think you are right. You imagine you may have higher perceptions what is right. The prohibitionists had this worked out very skilfully. It may be that the discovery of Australia will turn out to be less important than the discovery and meaning of bacilli; or so they hope.
                          The staff of caduceus – the staff of Hermes and the traditional sign of healers – is now usurped by the practise of doctoring, calling itself the science of medicine. Healing is not their goal, but the conquering of disease, which is making so much money that to be sick, is costing society on average twice as much as one produces per day. This latter non-method runs around in circles in the periphery, while the centre, the patient is completely ignored. It is the wild goose chase after the chimera of the material cause of disease. It is based on the following generalisations and hence failures.
                          It takes its leave from the mythological Mr Average, who is a figment of the imagination.
                          It is under the illusion that disease is a localised phenomenon, situated somewhere in the tissues or the organs.
                          Because of this illusion of locality, specialisms are the next fragmentary problem they face, since it boils down to knowing so much about so little that one knows nothing.
                          This specialism leads automatically to medieval polypharmacy, because each specialist will give his own type of medicine. Since none knows what the other did, such abominable mixtures cause untold problems.
                          It is under the illusion that the accompanying germ is the cause of this disease, whereas the germ is really also the result.
                          It tests its medicines first on animals, as if animals are more like people than people. From this aberrational idea no conclusions can ever be drawn
                          Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.


                          • We demand justice for and freedom from the suffering and compensation for those that have undergone their useless treatment and those that lost loved ones because of that same treatment......................................... ................

                            while the centre, the patient is completely ignored. It is the wild goose chase after the chimera of the material cause of disease. It is based on the following generalisations and hence failures.......................................... ...........

                            Thanks Kaviraj
                            Well said.................!
                            Thought I'd revive this thread..............lets hope
                            "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


                            • you believe that homeopathy is exempt, and I believe that you are only saying that because it fails RDBPCTs[2]: special pleading.

                              moopet, for your info and to refute the lies you post
                              Homeopathy: Overview Of Human Clinical Trials

                              Historical review of the main publications
                              A number of large-scale studies designed to evaluate the huge amount of homeo-pathic literature have been conducted, especially in the last 10 years.
                              Organisations and institutes of great international prestige and importance have dealt with the issue of homeopathy. All of them have concluded that homeopathy possesses therapeutic efficacy. The characteristics of these studies are briefly summarised below.
                              In 1991, J. Kleijnen et al. in the Netherlands evaluated 107 homeopathic clinical trials on the basis of a number of evaluation criteria also used in allopathic clinical trials (Kleijnen J. et al. – Clinical trials in homeopathy. British Medical Journal, 1991; 302:316-323). They selected 22 of these trials, which they judged to be of good quality (large number of patients recruited, type of randomisation, description of patients and methods, double blinding, and stated parameters for evaluation of results). 15 of these 22 trials, in which patients treated with the homeopathic drug were compared with pa-tients who were untreated or treated with a placebo, demonstrated the therapeutic effi-cacy of the homeopathic drug.
                              Kleijnen’s meta-analysis was therefore mainly formulated on the basis of observa-tional studies. Globally, 81 of the 107 studies reviewed by Kleijnen et al. (76%) gave favourable results.
                              In 1992, in view of the increasingly widespread use of non-conventional medicine (among which homeopathy stands out for the quantity and quality of the basic research and controlled clinical trials) and increased interest by the public and the media, the US Congress instituted the Office of Complementary Alternative Medicine, which later be-came NICAM (the National Institute of Complementary Alternative Medicine) within the National Institute of Health. NICAM has an annual budget of US$ 100 million, and is responsible for laying down guidelines for research into the validation of complemen-tary medicines, formulating trial protocols and allocating funds for quality research.
                              In May 1997, a report entitled “Overview of data from homeopathic medicine trials” was published by experts (clinical physicians, university pharmacologists and re-searchers in the homeopathic field) forming the Homeopathic Medicine Research Group, Advisory Group 1, set up by the European Community.
                              These experts identified 377 clinical trials, short-listed 220, and reviewed 184. De-tailed research lasting several months was conducted on the best trials, to evaluate their scientific value. The conclusions researched by the Advisory Group are unequivo-cal: the number of significant results cannot be attributed to chance. The analysis pro-vided a random hypothesis value of p < 0.001.
                              The Advisory Group remained very cautious, but expressly stated: “The null hypothe-sis that homeopathy has no effect can be rejected with certainty; in other words, in at least one of the studies examined the patients treated with the homeopathic remedy received benefits compared with the control patients who received the placebo”.
                              In 1997, K. Linde et al. (Munich University) published the results of a meta-analysis of no less than 135 clinical trials which compared homeopathic drugs with a placebo in Lancet (Linde K. et Al. – Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350:834-843). The authors concluded that “…The results of this meta-analysis are not compatible with the hy-pothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo”.
                              Linde had already published the favourable results of basic research studies con-ducted with homeopathic drugs in 1994 (Linde K. et al. – Critical review and metaana-lysis of serially agitated dilutions in experimental toxicology – Human Exp.Toxicol., 1994, 13:481-492).
                              In 1998, E. Ernst and E.G. Hahn described the state of the art in homeopathy, draw-ing conclusions similar to those reached by Linde in his 1997 meta-analysis (Ernst E., Hahn E.G. – Homeopathy: a clinical appraisal. Oxford – Butterworth. Heinman, 1998).

                              In 1998, P. Bellavite, Associate Professor of General Pathology at Verona University, published a detailed review which collected, classified and analysed much of the avail-able scientific literature that documents the effects of homeopathic remedies in clinical trials, together with studies conducted in the field of basic research. As regards clinical research, Bellavite reported on the most significant and methodologically reliable stud-ies, drawing the conclusion that “the common opinion that scientific proof of the clinical efficacy of homeopathy does not exist must therefore be refuted”.
                              Basic research is also actively developing, and some high-quality in vitro and in vivo studies that demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy have been published in interna-tionally recognised journals.
                              Another meta-analysis conducted in 2000 on 24 studies relating to controlled, ran-domised clinical trials concluded that “There is some evidence that homeopathic treat-ments are more effective than placebo” (M. Cucherat et al. – Evidence of clinical effi-cacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 2000; 56:27-33).
                              Oddly enough, this body of trials and studies, some of which are of great institutional importance (such as the work of the Advisory Group set up by the European Commu-nity and the research conducted by NICAM in the US) has not been given sufficient prominence, either within the scientific community or by media.
                              This book is designed to fill the communication gap by systematically classifying the available studies, and in particular by reporting on the latest controlled clinica trials, which have become increasingly numerous in the past 2-3 years. The chapters which follow are devoted to classification and analysis of the best publications in the clinical field.

                              Approximately 400 Publications

                              Approximately 400 publications obtainable from international data bases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, the British Library, Stock Alert Service, SIGLE, Amed, etc.) which re-late to controlled clinical trials of nosographically defined disorders (accounting for ap-prox. 80% of the homeopathy studies conducted up to December 2001) demonstrate the therapeutic efficacy of the homeopathic drug tested.
                              No less than 98 studies (25%) were indexed in Medline between 1998 and 2001 alone, clearly indicating researchers’ increasing interest in homeopathy.
                              We have excluded from our review studies which fail to comply with validated opera-tional protocols; we relied in particular on the “Guidelines on planning, conduct and evaluation of multicentric studies” published in the German Official Federal Gazette No. 299, Vol. 4, 12, 1998.
                              The exclusion criteria were consequently as follows:
                              1) open studies (only the global efficacy of homeopathy can be considered with
                              this method, not the effect of each individual drug)
                              2) retrospective studies (which do not involve comparison with homogeneous
                              3) studies in which a number of therapeutic techniques were associated
                              4) lack of homogeneity of the disorder among groups and within the same group
                              5) small number of patients recruited
                              6) defects in methodological procedure.
                              When these exclusion criteria were applied, the number of publications was reduced to approximately 200. We therefore examined only placebo-controlled trials and trials which compared a homeopathic medicine with the corresponding allopathic reference drug, some of which have been published in major international non-homeopathic jour-nals such as the Lancet, Cancer, the British Medical Journal, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, etc. (Table 2).
                              Table 1
                              Total number of scientific publications
                              reporting sig-nificant results:
                              Homeopathic medicine supe-rior to placebo: Homeopathic medicine not in-ferior to corre-sponding
                              allopathic refer-ence
                              drug: studies relating to controlled human clinical trials which provide valid, une-quivocal informa-tion about the therapeutic effect of the drug in question have consequently been selected.
                              A) HOMEO-PATHIC DRUG
                              Of these VS. PLA-CEBO =
                              B) HOMEOPATHIC DRUG
                              VS. THE CORRE-SPONDING
                              ALLOPATHIC RE-FERENCE
                              DRUG =
                              127 77 21 106 83,4% 16,6%

                              _ Of the 106 studies (A) 77 (72,6%) demonstrated (conducted between 1944 and 2000) that the homeopathic medicine was SUPERIOR to the placebo.
                              _ Of the 21 studies (B) 21 (100%) demonstrated (conducted between 1991 and 2001) that the homeopathic medicine was NOT THERAPEUTICALLY INFERIOR* to the corresponding allopathic reference drug.
                              _ 1991 to 1999 = 8
                              _ 2000 to 2001 = 13.
                              The table on the next page shows the salient data and references of the 98 publica-tions which demonstrated that a homeopathic medicine was superior to the placebo or not inferior to the corresponding allopathic reference drug.
                              The term “NOT INFERIOR” means EQUAL or SUPERIOR TO.

                              List Of International & National Medical Journals

                              List of international and national non-homeopathic medical journals cited in this book which have published the results of methodologically reliable controlled clinical trials that prove the efficacy of homeopathic medicines.
                              Experimental Model:
                              Homeopathic Medicine Vs Placebo
                              International Scientific Journal:
                              • Lancet
                              • British Medical Journal
                              • Rheumatology
                              • Phlebology
                              • Pediatrics
                              • Pédiatrie
                              • Allergologie
                              • British Journal Of Clinical Pharmacology
                              • Pediatric Infective Diseases Journal
                              • American Revue Of Respiratory Diseases
                              • Archives Of Medical Emergency
                              • Journal Of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
                              • Canadian Medical Association Journal
                              National Scientific Journal
                              • Orthopädische Praxis
                              • Therapiewoche
                              • Kinderarzt
                              • Forschungsmedizin
                              • Revue Française De Gynécologie Et Obstétricie
                              Experimental Model:
                              Homeopathic Medicine Vs Corresponding Allopathic Reference Drug
                              International Scientific Journal:
                              • Cancer
                              • Thrombosis Research
                              • Journal Of Clinical Pharmacology
                              • Archives Of Otolaringology/Head And Neck Surgery
                              • Arzneimittel Forschung/Drug Research

                              The Subject of “Publication Bias”

                              The subject of “publication bias” was tackled in the meta-analysis conducted by Klei-jnen (1991). However, this problem obviously does not relate to medical/scientific pub-lications only.
                              Many homeopathic studies with doubtful or negative results are rarely (if not excep-tionally) published in homeopathy journals; they are more likely to be published and commented on with negative emphasis in official journals, even when certain subjects are not in line with their editorial strategy.
                              Conversely, many favourable results obtained with homeopathic medicines as a re-sult of methodologically correct studies are published in homeopathic journals and merely ignored, censored, minimised or hyper-criticised by official allopathic journals, perhaps for fear of taking a favourable approach to a subject that is still controversial.
                              Despite the problem of publication bias, many prestigious national and international journals have published and given the right degree of emphasis to well-conducted ho-meopathic clinical trials simply because “the findings speak for themselves”, and sci-ence must take an impartial view.

                              Table 2
                              Allergies 11 9 2
                              Arthromyo-fascial apparatus 12 8 4
                              Gastrointestinal apparatus 9 8 1
                              Respiratory apparatus, common Cold/influenza syndrome and ent 20 15 5
                              Surgery, prophylaxis, and post-operative and post-radiation complications 9 6 3
                              Dermatology 6 6 0
                              Coagulation and circulatory Disorders 6 5 1
                              Gynaecology and obstetrics 9 7 2
                              Metabolism 5 5 0
                              Neurology 9 7 2
                              Sundry 2 1 1
                              Total 98 77 21
                              Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.


                              • Hi Gina,
                                good to see you here.
                                People over at the other side all want you back.
                                they have even started a thread, in the hope you will read it and reconsider.
                                Personally, i think you must decide yourself and not be swayed by sentiment.

                                Nonetheless i miss you too.
                                Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.