No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

    In allopathy, new medicines (sources are mostly chemical/synthetic) are constantly being created, tested in test-tubes, sick persons, or animals (rats), and going in and out of market every few years once their side effects (typical examples are of steroids, antibiotics, hormones) become obvious to the general public. How many allopathic drugs of yesterday can be found on the chemists’ shelves today? They all had their day, and their alluring names have faded into oblivion (because they are declared ineffective or dangerous), only to be replaced by newer drugs (now you can judge yourself how scientific allopathy is?).

    Homeopathic medicines (prepared from many natural substances such as herbs and minerals) used in the times of Dr. S. Hahnemann (200 yrs back) are used even today because of their efficacy. They have been tried and tested on healthy human beings. They are known, trusted, and reliable.
    Can't Say

  • #2
    Science is a method of validating and verifying theories. It has nothing to do with whether you like the results or not.

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


    • #3
      Scientific Studies

      FACT 28: In 2005 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 29: 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 30: 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 the placebo effect.

      FACT 31: 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
      <>BBC NEWS | England | Bristol | New study is boost to homoeopathy

      FACT 32: 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 33: Homeopathic medicines are not tested on animals.

      FACT 34: Homeopathic medicines work even better
      on animals and babies than on adults, proving this cannot be placebo.

      FACT 35: 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


      • #4
        scientific studies on homeopathics:


        Journeys in The Country of The Blind: Entanglement Theory and The Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings -- Milgrom 4 (1): 7 -- Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

        Bully Boys: Doctors continue to push homeopathy out of the NHS

        24 May 2007
        A small but vociferous group of doctors and scientists seems determined to remove homeopathy from the National Health Service.
        The group has written to all the primary health care trusts (PCTs), which govern medical provisions in their area, urging them to stop supplying access to homeopathy, which it describes as ‘crack-pot medicine’.
        A similar letter was sent last year by another group, which included a Nobel prize winner and six fellows of the Royal Society.
        This war of attrition seems to be working. Several PCTs were convinced by the arguments in the first letter and have stopped offering homeopathy, while the London Homeopathic Hospital says it may have to close because of a downturn in the numbers of NHS patients it’s seeing.
        It can hardly be an issue of cost. One PCT spent a mere £60,000 on homeopathy a year before dropping it as an option, while two in London – Hammersmith and Fulham PCTs – between them spent £300,000 on homeopathy last year. These two have also been convinced by the letters, and are planning to remove homeopathy as an option.
        Aside from the dubious science the letters’ signatories use, these bully-boy tactics go against the founding spirit of the NHS. In the original blueprint for a free health service, it states that homeopathy should be made available while there are people who want it, and there are doctors who can practise it. Both of these remain the case.

        Bullies and myopics, who refuse to consider that any medicine other than theirs could work, are removing consumer choice – and nobody is saying a word because, of course, they are-

        doctors and scientists.

        (Source: The Guardian, 23 May 2007).
        "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


        • #5
          Medical research tainted by drug company money

          01 October 2000
          Medical 'education' companies funded by the pharmaceutical industry are threatening to undermine medical education in the US.
          So says a report by the prominent American consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. It is estimated that these companies known as medical education service suppliers (MESS) are now being paid more than one billion US dollars a year to organise educational meetings and programmes, and to prepare educational material for doctors and medical students.

          MESS, however, claims that it is simply filling a gap left by a government which won't provide continuing education and educational aids, and meeting the needs of institutions and physicians who dislike having to pay for them.

          Public Citizen argues, however, that MESS exists simply to promote drug sales for its backers a claim that seems to be justified. Many MESS openly claim in their marketing material that such educational programmes are good for sales (Lancet, 2000; 356: 494).

          ****Another recent report suggests that clinical trials funded by drug companies tend to be biased and may even be unethical. ****

          The study examined 136 published randomised trials focusing on multiple myeloma (widespread bone marrow tumour), and compared the number whose results favoured new experimental treatments over standard forms of treatment.

          At first glance, the studies appeared balanced in terms of their findings, with around half favouring each type of treatment.

          But, when the data were reanalysed by funding source, nearly three quarters of the trials funded entirely or in part by the drug industry,

          compared with just 26 per cent of those funded by government or non profit organisations, came out in favour of the new experimental treatment under study.

          Many of the drug company funded studies also appeared to be conducted purely in order to put some research behind a particular treatment.

          This is in opposition to the unwritten medical uncertainty principle that randomised trials should be conducted only if there is substantial uncertainty regarding the relative value of one treatment versus another
          (Lancet, 2000; 356; 635-8).
          "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


          • #6
            Quite frankly, Gina, I'm tired of your spamming threads with quotations trying to make conventional medicine look bad. All I ever see you do is post quites and links; don't you have anything of your own to say?

            We might discuss the vices of the medical business (god knows there are plenty), but that is not the subject of this thread, nor is it the subject of most of the other threads you spam.

            If I thought the administrators of these forums gave a damn, I would report you, but instead, I'll just ignore your posts. If you should ever have something to say, of your own, and on topic, I'll read it.

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


            • #7
              trying to make conventional medicine look bad...............

              Thats Funny Hans! No one has to make conventional medicine look bad,It does it all on its own,even without all my posts...........................................

              The normal response from defending Homeopathy from skeptics on forums is"show me the link,show me the article- show me the document"........................I waist No time, I get right to the point sorry I am so blunt.
              And its not only for your eyes<there are many people reading these homeopathic forums that have been brainwashed by conventional medicine.Anyway MY replies were to Dr. Nancy not You............................................... ..........I was in agreement with her posting.
              "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


              • #8
                Dear Dr. Nancy
                Thought you might enjoy this videoclip;

                . Prescription for Disaster is an in-depth investigation into the symbiotic relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care. Prescription for Disaster takes you on a journey through the tangled web of big business, the way disease is treated today, and the consequences we suffer as a society. During this thorough investigation, we take a close look at patented drugs, why they are so readily prescribed by doctors, the role insurance companies and HMO's play in promoting compliance, and the problem of rising health care costs. We examine the marketing and public relations efforts on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, including sales reps, medical journals and conferences. Further, we look at alternatives to traditional pharmacology and drug therapy, such as vitamins and nutritional supplements, and why they are often perceived as a competitive threat to the drug manufacturers. Alternative therapies also include diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle. Watch Prescription for Disaster
                "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


                • #9
                  self evaluation

                  I think modern medicine should look and evaluate itself in which direction it is going. Why people have started discarding it and moving towards homeopathy?

                  Prescription drugs causing death

                  Death by Modern Medicine a book written by Dr. Carolyn Dean MD ND with Trueman Tuck,


                  • #10
                    Modern medicine is being evaluated all the time. By authorities, insurance companies, doctors, researchers, patients .... And, of course, by proponents of alternative methods.

                    What makes you conclude that people are moving away from modern medicine?

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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                      The headline of that page claims that prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death. If you look up statistics, you will find that this is not true. It is not even on top ten.

                      It's so easy to slander others if you don't bother to check your facts.

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


                      • #12
                        The FDA Wants to Stop You from
                        Protecting Yourself Against Drug Companies

                        This article is one of many-
                        Why the public has turned away from using conventional allopathic prescriptions..........................its corrupt,look who is watching the henhouse!
                        "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


                        • #13
                          Hans posted:"It's so easy to slander others if you don't bother to check your facts."........................................... .................................................. ....

                          Here are the facts:

                          The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.

                          "An analysis by Wald & Shojan [2001] found that only 1.5% of all adverse events result in an incident report, and only 6% of adverse drug events are identified properly....The Psychiatric Times noted that the AMA is strongly opposed to mandatory reporting of medical errors...Dr Jay Cohen, who has extensively researched adverse drug reactions (ADR), commented that because only 5% of ADRs are being reported, there are in reality, 5 million medications reactions each year."

                          In 2001, there were 7.5 million unnecessary surgical procedures, resulting in 37,136 deaths at a cost of $122 billion (using 174 US dollars)

                          The OTA concluded: “There are no mechanisms in place to limit dissemination of technologies regardless of their clinical value.” Shortly after the release of this report, the OTA was disbanded.

                          In 1983, 809,000 cesarean sections (21% of live births) were performed in the US, making it the nation's most common obstetric-gynecologic (OB/GYN) surgical procedure. The second most common OB/GYN operation was hysterectomy (673,000), followed by diagnostic dilation and curettage of the uterus (632,000). In 1983, OB/GYN procedures represented 23% of all surgery completed in the US.
                          In 2001, cesarean section is still the most common OB/GYN surgical procedure. Approximately 4 million births occur annually, with 24% (960,000) delivered by cesarean section. In the Netherlands, only 8% of births are delivered by cesarean section. This suggests 640,000 unnecessary cesarean sections—entailing three to four times higher mortality and 20 times greater morbidity than vaginal delivery—are performed annually in the US.
                          The US cesarean rate rose from just 4.5% in 1965 to 24.1% in 1986. Sakala contends that an “uncontrolled pandemic of medically unnecessary cesarean births is occurring.”(106) VanHam reported a cesarean section postpartum hemorrhage rate of 7%, a hematoma formation rate of 3.5%, a urinary tract infection rate of 3%, and a combined postoperative morbidity rate of 35.7% in a high-risk population undergoing cesarean section.

                          Results of the “Million Women Study” on HRT and breast cancer in the UK were published in medical journal The Lancet in August 2003. According to lead author Prof. Valerie Beral, director of the Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit: "We estimate that over the past decade, use of HRT by UK women aged 50-64 has resulted in an extra 20,000 breast cancers, estrogen-progestagen (combination) therapy accounting for 15,000 of these.” We were unable to find statistics on breast cancer, stroke, uterine cancer, or heart disease caused by HRT used by American women. Because the US population is roughly six times that of the UK, it is possible that 120,000 cases of breast cancer have been caused by HRT in the past decade. Death by Medicine----Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD (2003/4)
                          "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


                          • #14
                            Death by Medicine
                            By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD
                            read the 6 page article.......................

                            By Gary Null, Ph.D., PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD [back] Extracts
                            ABSTRACTTable 1: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic Cost of Medical Intervention
                            Table 2: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic Cost of Medical Intervention
                            Table 3: Estimated 10-Year Death Rates from Medical Intervention
                            Table 4: Estimated 10-Year Unnecessary Medical Events
                            Is American Medicine Working?
                            Underreporting of Iatrogenic EventsMedical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific Medicine
                            THE FIRST IATROGENIC STUDY
                            PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS ON IATROGENESIS
                            DRUG IATROGENESIS
                            Medication Errors
                            Recent Adverse Drug Reactions
                            Medicating Our Feelings
                            Television Diagnosis
                            How Do We Know Drugs Are Safe?
                            Specific Drug Iatrogenesis: Antibiotics
                            The Problem with Antibiotics
                            Cesarean Section
                            NEVER ENOUGH STUDIES
                            ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS
                            MALNUTRITION IN NURSING HOMES
                            Nosocomial Infections
                            Outpatient Iatrogenesis
                            Unnecessary Surgeries
                            MEDICAL ERRORS: A GLOBAL ISSUE
                            HEALTH INSURANCE
                            WAREHOUSING OUR ELDERS
                            Overmedicating Seniors
                            WHAT REMAINS TO BE UNCOVERED
                            Appendix: OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (OTA)
                            General Facts
                            Health-Related Research and Development
                            Pharmaceutical and Medical-Device Industries
                            Health Care Technology Assessment
                            Examples of Lack of Proper Management of HealthCare
                            Treatments for Coronary Artery Disease
                            Computed Tomography (CT)
                            Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
                            Laparoscopic Surgery
                            Infant Mortality
                            Screening for Breast Cancer
                            ABSTRACT A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good.............................................. ...................
                            "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein


                            • #15
                              Official statistics show a different picture, not only in the US, but in comparable countries.

                              N C H S - FASTATS - Leading Causes of Death
                              10 Leading Causes of Death, United States 1999
                              Death: Leading Causes of Death in Various Countries

                              We can, of course, always discuss the validity of any statistic material, but you need to realize that the invstigation that lead to this statement:

                              The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936.
                              - is not the result of an investigation of 783,936 actual cases, but an extrapolated number, calculated from an investigation of a far lower number of cases.

                              The determination of whether a death is iatrogenic can nearly always be discussed. For instance, when a terminal cancer patient dies with heavy palliative treatment as the primary cause, you could call it iatrogenic, but ... witholding treatment would not have saved the patient's life.

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