Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Lancet's homeopathy report unfair'

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

  • 'Lancet's homeopathy report unfair'

    NEW DELHI: It is no sweet pill. In fact, the Lancet report on homoeopathy, The End of Homeopathy has stirred a hornet's nest.

    Homeopathic practitioners in India say the credibility of a 250-year-old system can't be questioned just because a bunch of allopaths have different views on it.

    The article was published by scientists from the University of Berne, Switzerland, and had concluded that homoeopathy had the same medical value as placebos and was no better than dummy drugs.

    Homoeopaths say the conclusions are completely off the mark. "The study was based on random controlled trials (RCTs), while homoeopathy is a people-oriented system.

    Medicines are prescribed, based on individual traits and requirements. Unlike allopathy where one drug works on everybody with a particular ailment, here, 10 different combinations may be required for 10 patients with the same ailment," says Dr R K Manchanda, deputy director, Nehru Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Delhi.

    Tonsillitis alone has 100 different kinds of homoeopathic medicines.

    Therefore, the random controlled trials concept does not work here.

    "Is it right to check the effectiveness of one medical system using the meas ures of another, when the two systems are so different?" asks Dr Sunita Joshi, a practitioner.

    The absence of homoeopathy experts in the study team and the editorial board of the journal is another point of contention.

    Homoeopaths argue that the Lancet report was just a statistical paper based on random controlled trials lifted from the Internet and not based on actual tests.

    "What's more, in 1997, the same journal had published a report by German scientists that said homoeopathic drugs are 245% more effective than placebos. And now, this study. Which is correct?" asks Dr Mukesh Batra, Dr Batra's Positive Health Clinic.

    Homoeopaths also say the article included a list of clinical topics on which the survey was based, except paediatrics. This is the only field of medicine free of the placebo effect, and where data could show the unbiased clinical effect of each system.

    "Traditionally, homoeopathy works best among children. Also, if it wasn't effective, 100 billion people all over the world would not trust it," says Batra. Doctors say patients turning to homoeopathy have increased.

    In the last five years alone, Batra says, it has grown 25% all over the world. He claims he treats around 7,500 patients every month.

    In fact, the gap between allopathy and homoeopathy is not much.

    A recent paper titled Cost effectiveness and efficacy of homoeopathy in primary health care units of government of Delhi by Dr Manchanda and Dr Kulashreshtha says: "The average annual patient turnover in an allopathic clinic as against a homoeopathic one was 27,508 patients and 24,943 respectively."

    Experts however say the Lancet study might have dealt a body blow to the age-old system discovered in Germany.

    Practitioners however say homoeopathy still is the safest system as it has no side-effects.

    No wonder it remains the second-most popular system of medicine after allopathy. No wonder Manchanda is all for promoting it at the primary health care level too in order to minimise costs.

    Source link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1241713,curpg-1,fright-0,right-0.cms
    Dr.A.Kannan MD(Hom)
    www.homoeodoctor.com

  • #2
    On this issue, Dr. MAS passed very good remarks. He said, Lancet is actually want to do buisness by publishing this rubbish report and put the report on sale. This is exactly the same that WHCC did research and found homeopahtic effective and put the report on sale. Anybody can read but cannot paste anywhere without having rights and for getting rights pay 10 thousand dollars. Lancet played game with homeopaths.

    Comment


    • #3
      Dear Doctor Amir Shahzad,

      You are right what you said.You and every body is well aware who is behind this.
      People are blaming homeopathy since its beginning.The pharmaceutical companies are behind this and they will keep on doing this because they are directly hit by homeopathy.
      The single remedy at a time and minimum dose,they just cannot tolerate that.We do have some deficiencies especially in field of education.If these defeciencies are removed we can stand by their side-no doubt.But you know what we are doing,the most famous practitioner are doing combination remedies and our pharmacies local and foreign are spending a lot of money for the promotion of their products.It is not bad with this homeopathy is also getting promotion but by doing so we are discouriging deep study of homeopathy.The person who never open a book,never consult the repertory is the most famous doctor and earning a lot of money of course.
      sajjad.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by drkannan
        "Traditionally, homoeopathy works best among children. Also, if it wasn't effective, 100 billion people all over the world would not trust it," says Batra.
        World population is around 6 billion. Where did this number come from? If it's an accurate quote from Batra then I'd be *extremely* distrustful of *any* figures mentioned.

        Comment


        • #5
          I mentioned some issues related to 'so thought failure of homeopathy in DBPC studies' in another thread.

          http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=6370

          Survey report shows quite positive results (somewhat exactly, as homeopaths & its patients observe), whereas DBPC studies not. Look at the following observational/survey report:-

          http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf...cm.2005.11.793

          I think this report indicate/justify homeopathic effects with & without conventional medicines. As some people object that it is not DBPC report but Why doctors sent patients to homeopathic hospital? Why doctors, homeopaths, patients & their relatives not discontinuued, if they noted no positivities during a long period of six years? Can you expect such a big fraud in UK's such a reputed hospital? It is clear in report that patients on conventional medicines & with some other outside influces, were seprated & grouped in "x" group, whose results were neligible.
          Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
          Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kayveeh
            Why doctors, homeopaths, patients & their relatives not discontinuued, if they noted no positivities during a long period of six years?
            For the sake of symmetry:

            Scientific research is scientific research. Sometimes it's flawed, and sometimes those flaws take a long time to be corrected, but there's also a flaw in the argument above. Saying, "there must be something to it because so many people believe in it" is circular. One could equally say, "Why (have other) doctors, scientists, laypersons and their relatives not accepted homeopathic medicine, if they have noticed any positives during the last century?"

            And

            Originally posted by kayveeh
            Can you expect such a big fraud in UK's such a reputed hospital?
            Why not? If you believe that the larger part of modern medicine is falsifying reports to discredit homeopathy, or at least taking the side of staunch conservatism, is that not the same thing?

            Not trying to derail the topic, just trying to make it stick to the research part

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by moopet

              Scientific research is scientific research. Sometimes it's flawed, and sometimes those flaws take a long time to be corrected, .... One could equally say, "Why (have other) doctors, scientists, laypersons and their relatives not accepted homeopathic medicine, if they have noticed any positives during the last century?"
              And
              Why not? If you believe that the larger part of modern medicine is falsifying reports to discredit homeopathy, or at least taking the side of staunch conservatism, is that not the same thing?
              Not trying to derail the topic, just trying to make it stick to the research part

              I recall those difficult years when I had to improvise very simple ways to manage emergency cases while practising in remote areas in the state of Johore, Malaysia, when the nearest hospital was miles away. Droplet feeding a succussed preparation from the patient's vomitus in accidental poisoning was a desperate homeopathic procedure in jungle medicine but not in orthodox medicine.. There was no time for detailed history -taking. Slipping some crashed homeopathic granules of Antimony Tartarate 6x into a gasping cyanotic child's mouth, with respiratory problems before the frantic rush to the nearest hospital, was another emergency measure. Breathing into a perforated paper bag for better carbon dioxide and exhaled Nitric Oxide retention was a life-saving measure to maintain vasodilation to provide oxygen for life maintenance to the anoxic child during the journey to the nearest medical institution ....
              .Under such straitened circumstances, I witnessed the foreign-body extruding effect of potentised Silica in healed injuries still harbouring the retained debris. The extruded objects [ tiny glass pieces and wooden splinters] were palpable over the skin. My patients from the jungle fringes in Kahang, Johore shared with me their folklore steeped in traditional medicine.It could be that the memories of the sounds and voices [ Nature's silence ] of the rainforests where I spent most of my childhood, that had lured me to trudge the lonely Way searching for holistic truths...

              Very few would trudge the lonely path the way I did. I had suffered and ran the gamut which many of my pioneering teachers of holistic medicine and allied sciences had experienced. The reawakening was rejuvenating and the realization of my cherished dream that eventually the medical establishment in Malaysia would resonate with Mother Nature is well worth all the illusory deprivations that had beset me and the shattering experience of holistic reawakening. Herbal Therapy has been accepted in Malaysia recently for the treatment of Cancer.

              On research, much has been done on the quiet and some has been blantantly ignored. The entrained electromagnetic intelligence, in chemicals or heavy metals or in the water molecules, is the specific signature of the entity, be it a a human cell, bacterium,fungus,yeast,parasite or virus
              Although more than 200 years have elapsed since the beginning of homeopathy, the so-called (long-term) memory of water is still a highly disputable and controversial theme in scientific circles . On the basis of the known and accepted physical laws and properties of water, a vast majority of scientific community does not allow even a remote possibility that water might "remember" a substance once diluted in it. The reason for this is that the Brownian motion of water molecules and clusters would annihilate any memory structures in terms of picoseconds . However, in spite of this presumably physical impossibility many healing practitioners as well as many scientists claim on empirical grounds that water can prove its memorising capacities . In physical researches the most striking results indicating water memory were obtained from NMR, UV and X-ray spectroscopy of ultra-highly diluted water (ultra high dilution means a dilution of a substance in which there is high probability that not even one molecule is left; it is practically pure water).In conclusion, the results demonstrate repeatable and statistically significant effects of highly diluted standard and homeopathic dilutions of KI on corona discharge Kirlian electrophotography. This, together with countless results obtained by other research groups, related to biological effects of homeopathic dilutions, indicates that there is some physical basis enabling organisms to utilize information imprinted into water.

              http://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/...strumental.htm

              Another website which really impressed me is the research work on Homeopathy and Digital Biology ( Benveniste 's Molecular memories of structured water ). It is really worth waiting for the downloading. It is beautifully presented.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by moopet
                For the sake of symmetry:

                Scientific research is scientific research. Sometimes it's flawed, and sometimes those flaws take a long time to be corrected, but there's also a flaw in the argument above. Saying, "there must be something to it because so many people believe in it" is circular. One could equally say, "Why (have other) doctors, scientists, laypersons and their relatives not accepted homeopathic medicine, if they have noticed any positives during the last century?"

                And



                Why not? If you believe that the larger part of modern medicine is falsifying reports to discredit homeopathy, or at least taking the side of staunch conservatism, is that not the same thing?

                Not trying to derail the topic, just trying to make it stick to the research part
                Can't we then say, all the studies, researches, discoveries, surveys etc. done by science people for science can be pro/biased and false as not yet endorssed by homeopathy or by other CAMs? Why you think, science stamp on their system and other systems should only be valid? If you can think that, that can be cheating or fraud, how all such studies, researches and discoveries done by science people for science can be tursted? Can't these be for some vested self interests?

                So pls take stamp an endorssment of homeopathy on all such modernizations than accept, accordingly.
                Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kayveeh
                  Can't we then say, all the studies, researches, discoveries, surveys etc. done by science people for science can be pro/biased and false as not yet endorssed by homeopathy or by other CAMs? Why you think, science stamp on their system and other systems should only be valid? If you can think that, that can be cheating or fraud, how all such studies, researches and discoveries done by science people for science can be tursted? Can't these be for some vested self interests?

                  So pls take stamp an endorssment of homeopathy on all such modernizations than accept, accordingly.

                  If I said that eating broken glass cured warts (random example for the sake of argument) and my friend said that he agreed, that would not be good enough. If my friend's friend said he'd eaten glass and had no warts, that wouldn't be good enough. If *his* friend claimed it was scientifically correct because the glass contained the memory of the reflection of his warts, that wouldn't be good enough.

                  If more than one independent, properly blinded study showed that eating broken glass correlated with a lack of warts, that would be enough to show interest.
                  If one person or group emerged with a hypothesis grounded in acknowledged science showing that glass granules in *any way* reacted with wart cells, that would be enough to show interest.

                  Science isn't a dirty word, and it's not a belief system. It's mostly just common sense...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by moopet
                    If I said that eating broken glass cured warts (random example for the sake of argument) and my friend said that he agreed, that would not be good enough. If my friend's friend said he'd eaten glass and had no warts, that wouldn't be good enough. If *his* friend claimed it was scientifically correct because the glass contained the memory of the reflection of his warts, that wouldn't be good enough.If more than one independent, properly blinded study showed that eating broken glass correlated with a lack of warts, that would be enough to show interest.
                    If one person or group emerged with a hypothesis grounded in acknowledged science showing that glass granules in *any way* reacted with wart cells, that would be enough to show interest.
                    It looks this example have some dynamic thoughts. Glass contain silica. Other thought is reflection effect--refer "can photo effect" there.
                    Anyway it depend upon the type of friends you make.


                    Science isn't a dirty word, and it's not a belief system. It's mostly just common sense...
                    But I think we are discussing "uncommon sense".
                    Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                    Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      discussion on the lancet report and more...

                      is homeopathy mere placebo ?...

                      does homeopathy work ? .....

                      check:
                      http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=6082

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Well, it is not exactly surprising that homeopaths would be less than enchanted about the Lancet report. What would surprise me would be if it was countered with solid fact.

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

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                          Well, it is not exactly surprising that homeopaths would be less than enchanted about the Lancet report. What would surprise me would be if it was countered with solid fact.
                          And I'm equally sure that billions of ignorant fools fall prey to your sophistries and obscurations because they also don't know anything defensible about medicine and thus mindlessly listen to killers like you. Therefore, expose yourself as a total fool and dangerous moron by telling them what you consider facts. This will be fun, I am sure.

                          Start with double-blind drug trials and all of the insane assumptions underlying them. Or start with your definitions of diseases, which are also total falsehoods. Or start with your rationales for giving deadly poisons in long-term doses, usually for the rest of the person's lifetime, as though it makes any sense to poison ill people. Or start with your rationales for backing the destruction of the planet by industrial chemistry since the insane and oxymoronic allopathic doctrine of supposed "toxic levels of poisons" underlies it. Or start with your insane idea that trillions of dollars wasted in useless research is a good idea. Or start with your insane notion that we should pump viruses into infants and all other people along with foreign proteins as vaccines even though all of the evidence proves they create diseases and deformities and had nothing to do with the disappearance of epidemics. Or start with your insane view that you can intervene in long-chain chemical reactions with chemical drugs even though you admit to knowing only 10% of human physiology. Or, underlying the foregoing, start with your insane doctrine of disease mechanisms. That one's a hoot! Start anywhere you want.
                          Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
                          www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
                          http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
                            And I'm equally sure that billions of ignorant fools fall prey to your sophistries and obscurations because they also don't know anything defensible about medicine and thus mindlessly listen to killers like you. Therefore, expose yourself as a total fool and dangerous moron by telling them what you consider facts. This will be fun, I am sure.

                            Start with double-blind drug trials and all of the insane assumptions underlying them. Or start with your definitions of diseases, which are also total falsehoods. Or start with your rationales for giving deadly poisons in long-term doses, usually for the rest of the person's lifetime, as though it makes any sense to poison ill people. Or start with your rationales for backing the destruction of the planet by industrial chemistry since the insane and oxymoronic allopathic doctrine of supposed "toxic levels of poisons" underlies it. Or start with your insane idea that trillions of dollars wasted in useless research is a good idea. Or start with your insane notion that we should pump viruses into infants and all other people along with foreign proteins as vaccines even though all of the evidence proves they create diseases and deformities and had nothing to do with the disappearance of epidemics. Or start with your insane view that you can intervene in long-chain chemical reactions with chemical drugs even though you admit to knowing only 10% of human physiology. Or, underlying the foregoing, start with your insane doctrine of disease mechanisms. That one's a hoot! Start anywhere you want.
                            Sorry, missed this one (I think I was in China at the time or something).

                            We could do all that Albert, and if you would commit to not spouting lies, we might even have a sensible discussion. However, we should do it in a different thread, since this thread is about homeopathy, not conventional meds.

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

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X