Fibromyalgia is a chronic ailment without a known cause and without a safe, effective conventional medical treatment. However, the three to six million Americans who suffer with fibromyalgia will be pleased to know that several studies published in leading medical journals have found outstanding results from homeopathic treatment.
Well-designed high quality scientific studies published in the British Medical Journal and in Rheumatology (the journal of the British Society for Rheumatology) have confirmed the real benefits of homeopathic medicines as distinct from a placebo.
Fibromyalgia is not considered to be a "disease" by the conventional medical standards but is recognized and referred to as a "syndrome." Although there are no specific blood tests, x-rays or any other type of technology that is presently accepted by conventional medicine for diagnosis of this condition, the diagnosis is based on clinical findings from the history and physical exam (pain in tender points).
Fibromyalgia was previously called "fibrositis," but this name was changed when it became evident that inflammation was not a part of this condition. In 1990 the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) established criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia as a product of a well-designed, multi-center study of the condition (Wolfe F et al, 1990). As defined by ACR, fibromyalgia must include:
The syndrome of fibromyalgia can cause stiffness, fatigue, myalgias (muscle pain), subjective numbness, headaches (often migraine), dizziness, paraesthesias, IBS-like gastrointestinal disturbances, memory and concentration problems, sleep disorders and various states of anxiety and depression (Chakrabarty and Zoorob, 2007).
A recent meta-analysis of the efficacy of fibromyalgia pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments found that there was no clear indicator that specialized care provided more than the same moderate efficacy obtained in primary care settings with routine treatments (Garcia-Campayo J et al, 2008). Recommendations for the conventional medical management of fibromyalgia typically are based on a program that emphasized education, use of antidepressants and/or muscle relaxants, exercise and cognitive therapy best accomplished when the patient and healthcare providers work as a team (Goldenberg, et al, 2004).
In 2004, Goldenberg et al published results from an extensive literature search of fibromyalgia treatment trials and found no evidence for efficacy of opioids, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics, melatonin, calcitonin, thyroid hormone, guaifenesin, dehydroepiandrosterone or magnesium. Since this article's publication, duloxetine (Cymbalta), milnacipran (Savella) and pregabalin (Lyrica) have attained FDA approval for treatment of fibromyalgia, although as is typical, each of these drugs is known to cause a variety of side effects, including significant fatigue, dizziness, nausea, headache, insomnia, sexual problems (that can even last for years after stopping drug treatment), weight gain, excessive sweating and constipation. The most serious adverse effects cases, admittedly rare, are uncontrolled hypertension, hepatotoxicity (liver toxicity) or suicide. Even more problematic is the fact that each of these drugs is known to create a wide variety of minor and serious symptoms if or when the patient tries to stop taking the drug.
In 2010, a systematic review of the most recently used conventional drugs for fibromyalgia was published in a leading scientific journal (Clauw, 2010). Although some drugs had beneficial effects, the author acknowledged the significant limitations of these benefits and the need to utilize other treatment options. He wrote, "Because of the modest overall analgesic efficacy seen with any class of analgesic drug in any chronic pain state, we should be particularly aggressive about using more non-pharmacological therapies in treating patients with chronic pain."
Conventional physicians are usually forced to use combinations of drugs to control the numerous and varied symptoms expressed by fibromyalgia patients, though the use of multiple drugs concurrently generates additional pathology and further challenges when the patient wishes to slow down or end the medication. Further, little research has been conducted to date evaluating the use of polypharmacy methods for these patients (thus, whatever research has been conducted on individual drugs becomes questionably relevant to those patients taking multiple drugs).
Fibromyalgia affects women 10 times more often than men, and is most common in women 20-50 years old (Chakrabarty and Zoorob, 2007). This condition also has been observed in children and adolescence and is more common in relatives of patients with fibromyalgia, suggesting the contribution of both genetic and environmental factors, which naturopathic and homeopathic practitioners are especially trained to address and manage effectively.
Homeopathic Treatment:
Homeopathic medicine is a 200+-year-old system of medicine that utilizes specially prepared doses of medicines made from various substances of the plant, mineral or animal kingdom. Each medicine is prescribed for its capacity to cause, if given in overdose to healthy people, symptoms similar to those that the sick person is experiencing. Because basic physiology recognizes that symptoms represent defenses of the body (and mind) in its efforts to fight infection and/or adapt to stress, a homeopathic medicine is selected for its capacity to mimic a person's own symptoms, thereby augmenting their own defensive response.
Just as vaccines and allergy treatments are in part based on this same premise -- whatever a substance causes in overdose, it will elicit an immune response when taken in small doses -- homeopathic medicines are a system of helping the "wisdom of the body" defend and heal itself.
In homeopathy, ALL ailments are considered "syndromes," that is, all disease is a constellation of physical and psychological symptoms, and each patient has his or her own subtly different syndrome of a disease. The fact that people with fibromyalgia tend to have sometimes slightly or overtly differing symptoms from each other is no significant problem for homeopathic treatment. In fact, homeopathic treatment tends to be easier when patients have idiosyncratic or unusual symptoms.
The good news for fibromyalgia patients who receive homeopathic medicines is that these remedies are not known to cause direct drug interactions with any conventional drugs the patient may be taking. The pharmaceutical lobby decries homeopathy for its lack of effect: the problem for them is that if one unfathomable homeopathic treatment works, their argument is in tatters. Patients are also spared some of the conventional drug artillery used to limit symptoms. Further, because people with fibromyalgia tend to have distinct and unusual symptoms, this situation actually makes it easier for homeopaths to treat them successfully.
Other advantages homeopathy has over conventional drug therapies are lower cost and the avoidance of the usual GI, headache and CNS side effects as well as reactions that can be life threatening.
However, newspapers, magazines and even books on fibromyalgia, typically ignore studies showing the efficacy of a homeopathic medicine in its treatment. This omission occurs despite evidence of its significant efficacy as verified in several studies published in major medical journals. In addition to the scientific evidence for homeopathic treatment, surveys of people with fibromyalgia tend to show that homeopathic medicines is one of the more popular alternative treatments used by people suffering from this ailment. For instance, Dietlind et al (2005) found that 10 percent of patients answering a survey on their use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine for fibromyalgia symptoms reported using homeopathy.
Scientific Evidence for Homeopathy
The first controlled trial testing the homeopathic treatment of patients with fibromyalgia was an impressive and sophisticated double-blind "crossover" trial that was published in the prestigious British Medical Journal (Fisher et al, 1989). A crossover trial is a sophisticated method to test the efficacy of a treatment because each patient's results with the "real treatment" are compared with that same patient's results with a placebo. While most double-blind studies compare one group of people who receive the "real treatment" with another (hopefully similar) group of people who receive a placebo, crossover trials compare the results of each person and his/her response to real treatment with his/her response to placebo.
Because of the nature of a crossover trial, the researchers chose to accept into this study only patients that fitted the symptom-syndrome for needing just one homeopathic medicine that tends to be one of the most commonly indicated remedies for fibromyalgia patients. The researchers found a surprisingly high percentage of patients (42 percent) whose symptoms indicated a need for this medicine, Rhus toxicodendron (Rhus tox).
After the researchers found 30 patients who seemed to fit the symptoms of Rhus tox, half of the subjects were given a placebo during the first half of the experiment, while the other half were given the homeopathic medicine. Then, halfway through the experiment, each subject's treatment was switched.
The homeopathic dose of the medicine used was 6C. The researchers specifically chose to use a low potency dose of this medicine for this trial because these less potent doses provide short-term results. Over 200 years of homeopathic practice have found that homeopathic medicines that are of a higher potency -- that is, those that have undergone a greater number of dilutions, with vigorous shaking of the solution in between dilutions -- have a longer term effect [1]. Because halfway through this study each subject was given either a placebo or a homeopathic medicine, the researchers only wanted to use a medicine that provided a short-term result and this is precisely what their results confirmed.
The researchers found that there was a substantially significant degree of improvement in the reduction of tender points and improved pain and sleep when the subjects were taking the homeopathic medicine, as compared to when these same subjects were taking a placebo. In other words, twice as many people experienced significantly less pain or significantly improved sleep when they were taking the homeopathic medicine as compared to when they were taking the placebo.
Iris Bell, M.D., Ph.D. and her colleagues at the University of Arizona School of Medicine conducted a study funded by National Institutes of Health which resulted in four articles published in peer-review medical journals (Bell et al, 2004a; Bell et al, 2004b; Bell et al, 2004c; Bell et al, 2004d). The primary clinical results from this study were published in the highly respected journal, Rheumatology (published by the British Society for Rheumatology), and it found statistically significant results from homeopathic treatment. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 62 fibromyalgia patients received an oral daily dose of an individually chosen homeopathic medicine (or a placebo) and were evaluated at baseline, two months and four months (Bell, et al, 2004a).
The study found that 50 percent of patients given a homeopathic medicine experienced a 25 percent or greater improvement in tender point pain on examination, whereas only 15 percent of those who were given a placebo experienced a similar degree of improvement. After four months, the homeopathic patients also rated the "helpfulness of the treatment" significantly greater than did those who were given a placebo. It is therefore not surprising that the study also showed that the average number of remedies recommended by the homeopaths was substantially higher to those in the placebo group as compared with the real treatment group.
One special additional feature of this trial was that the first dose of medicine was given by smell and that both groups were monitored with EEG. The researchers found that there was a significant and identifiable difference in the EEG readings in patients who were given the real homeopathic medicine as compared to those given the placebo (Bell et al, 2004b; Bell et al, 2004c). Each patient had three laboratory sessions, including at baseline, at three months and at six months after initial treatment. The researchers found that the active treatment group experienced significant increases in the EEG relative alpha magnitude, while patients given a placebo experienced a decrease in this measurement.
Another unique feature of this study was that it included an optional crossover design, allowing patients who had initially been prescribed one treatment (placebo or medication) to switch to the "other" treatment (Bell et al, 2004d). The researchers found that 31 percent of those patients who had been prescribed the real medication chose to switch, while 41 percent of those patients who had been prescribed the placebo chose to switch.
The combined evidence of clinical improvement along with physiological response to the homeopathic medicine gives these results additional significance.
The newest randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing "usual medical care" compared with usual medical care plus adjunctive care by a homeopath for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS)(Relton et al., 2009). Adjunctive care consisted of five in depth interviews and individualized homeopathic medicines. The primary outcome measure was the difference in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score at 22 weeks. ("Usual care" refers to one or more of the following: physiotherapy, aerobic exercise, analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antidepressants.)
A total of 47 patients were recruited. Drop out rate in the usual care group was higher than the homeopath care group (8/24 vs 3/23). Adjusted for baseline, there was a significantly greater mean reduction in the FIQ total score (function) in the homeopathic care group than the usual care group (-7.62 vs 3.63). There were significantly greater reductions in the homeopath care group in the McGill pain score, FIQ fatigue, and 'tiredness upon waking' scores. The study also found a small effect on pain score (0.21, 95 percent CI -1.42 to 1.84) (despite what may be considered a relatively small effect on pain, this degree of benefit resembles the small to modest effect from conventional medications described above); but this trial found a surprisingly large effect on function (0.81, 95 percent CI -8.17 to 9.79). Of additional importance, there were no reported adverse events from homeopathic medicines.
Ultimately, the homeopathic treatment of patients with fibromyalgia requires individualized care by clinicians who are adequately trained in homeopathy. This condition is too complex for 'self-care treatment' or for treatment by clinicians who have not received professional training.
The body of scientific evidence showing efficacy of individualized homeopathic treatment in the care of patients with fibromyalgia suggests significant benefits. If you or someone near and dear to you has fibromyalgia, consider getting professional homeopathic care for both safe and effective treatment. Further, although fibromyalgia is not officially considered a type of arthritis, a review of homeopathic research found patients with this more common ailment also benefit from homeopathic treatment (Jonas, et al, 2000).
A Note to and about Skeptics of Homeopathy:
Skepticism of homeopathy, like skepticism of any subject, can be healthy, except when this skepticism is based on ignorance of the subject and except when one maintains a closed mind or denies good scientific evidence. Sadly, the vast majority of people who express skepticism about homeopathy do not maintain a "healthy skepticism" but tend to be uninformed, misinformed, and simply in denial about homeopathy and the body of evidence that confirms its benefits.
It is more than a tad ironic that those people who hold themselves out as "defenders of medical science" tend to have such an unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. These people tend to show evidence of both ignorance about homeopathy and (worse) arrogance about their viewpoints. These people who are "medical fundamentalists" love to attack homeopathy saying that "there is no evidence that homeopathy works." In fact, they make this assertion so often that they have gotten some people to actually believe them. Needless to say, anyone who says that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathic medicines work is simply proving their ignorance of the subject (as this article on fibromyalgia validates) or verifying their propensity for misinformation.
These fundamentalists also love to assert that "there is no plausible mechanism" for how homeopathic medicines work. Such statements display a serious ignorance of medical history because people who say this ignore the fact that it was only relatively recently did physicians understood how aspirin worked, and yet, no doctor (or patient) chose to not use this drug simply because the mechanism of action was not adequately understood.
Whenever good scientists or physicians make reference to the many clinical and laboratory studies that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, the "deniers" assert that the scientist is only "cherry-picking" the good studies and ignoring the others. In reference to fibromyalgia, there have been no studies that have shown that homeopathic medicines don't work. The only studies that have been conducted to date have shown efficacy of homeopathic treatment. Obviously, there is no cherry-picking here.
Sadly, many people who claim to be skeptics are simply representatives of Big Pharma. In England, the leading anti-homeopathy organization, Sense about Science, is led by a former public relations expert who has a long history of representing Big Pharma companies (SourceWatch.org - see link in References).
Some "deniers" are audacious enough to suggest that the "weight of evidence" evaluating homeopathy shows that these medicines do not have any benefit beyond that of a placebo. Was Thomas Edison's discovery of electricity false because 999 experiments failed to produce electricity and only one that was successful? Is the weight of evidence that he failed?
Deniers will inevitably assert that Edison's discovery is proven every day, and yet, homeopaths likewise will say that homeopathy is proven every day by the hundreds of millions of its users worldwide, including many of the most respected scientists, physicians, corporate leaders, political leaders, clergy and spiritual leaders, literary greats, sports superstars, and every day average people.
The bottom line about research on homeopathy is that the denialists tend to evaluate a study by determining whether it was "well-conducted" according to inappropriate scientific standards. They do not evaluate whether the homeopathic medicine tested was the RIGHT medicine for the patient or not. For instance, if a researcher gave every patient the SAME drug no matter what disease they had, this study would not be a good test of that drug, even if it was "well-designed" (ie, it was randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled). And yet, it is common for these denialists to assume that just because a study testing homeopathy was well-controlled does NOT mean that it was a fair or adequate test of the homeopathic method.
People still skeptical about homeopathy might benefit from reading of body of previous articles that I have written at this website. More specifically, there is a body of evidence showing efficacy of homeopathic treatment of respiratory allergies, influenza, and many other conditions. Of additional importance is the fact that homeopathic medicine today is the leading alternative therapy used by physicians in Europe and that dozens of surveys have confirmed that patients who use homeopathic medicines tend to be significantly more educated than those who do not .
Perhaps the best evidence to verify the value of homeopathic medicines and the serious threat that homeopathy plays occurred in mid-2010 when the British Medical Association deemed homeopathy to be "witchcraft" (Donnelly, 2010). Because history confirms that "witches" were women healers, herbalists, and intuitives who were a threat to local doctors and the church, many of us who are involved in homeopathy are honored to be aligned with witches.
Finally, it may be appropriate for the medical fundamentalists to heed to words of the founder of homeopathic medicine, Samuel Hahnemann, M.D. On his gravestone are the Latin words, "Aude sapere," which translates as "dare to taste, to experience." Indeed, despite whatever skepticism one has, the proof is in the pudding. Try it yourself and see for yourself.
Special appreciation to June Riedlinger, R.Ph, Pharm.D., ND, who contributed to an earlier version of this article.
REFERENCES:
Bell IR, et al: Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology, 43:577-82, 2004a.
Bell IR, et al: EEG alpha sensitization in individualized homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia, Int J Neurosci.114(9):1195-1220, 2004b.
Bell IR, et al: Electroencephalographic cordance patterns distinguish exception clinical responders with fibromyalgia to individualized homeopathic medicines. J Alt Comp Med, 10(2):285-299, 2004c.
Bell et al, Individual differences in response to randomly assigned active individualized homeopathic and placebo treatment in fibromyalgia: implications of a double-blinded optional crossover design. J Alt Comp Med, 10(2):269-283, 2004d.
Chakrabarty S, Zoorob R: Fibromyalgia, Am Fam Physician, 76:247-54, 2007.
Clauw DJ. Fibromyalgia Drugs are 'As Good as it Gets' in Chronic Pain, Nat Rev Rheumatol., 2010;6(8):439-440.
Dietlind L, et al: Use of complementary and alternative medical therapies by patients referred to a fibromyalgia treatment program at a tertiary care center, Mayo Clin Proc, 80(1):55-60, 2005.
Donnelly L. Homeopathy is witchcraft, says doctors. The Daily Telegraph, May 15, 2010.
Fisher P et al: Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia), BMJ, 299(6695):365-6, 1989.
Garcia-Campayo J, et.al: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of fibromyalgia treatment according to level of care, Arthritis Research & Therapy 10(4):R81-96, 2008. Clin-eguide: Drug Information. Facts & Comparisons 4.0., St Louis, MO, 2009, Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Goldenberg DL, et al: Management of fibromyalgia syndrome. JAMA 292:2388-95, 2004.
Jonas WB, Linde K, and Ramirez G, Homeopathy and rheumatic disease, Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, February 2000,1:117-123.
Relton C, et al: Healthcare provided by a homeopath as an adjunct to usual care for Fibromyalgia (FMS): results of a pilot randomized controlled trial, Homeopathy 98(2):77-82, 2009.
SourceWatch.org: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sense_about_Science
FOOTNOTE:
[1] People who are interested in understanding how and why homeopathic medicines have this increased effect will benefit from reading, "The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: Historical and Scientific Evidence" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/the-case-for-homeopathic_b_451187.html). Further, interested individuals will benefit from reviewing the writings of Professor Martin Chaplin, a world renowned expert on water: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html and http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html.
Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com . He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (the Foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.
Follow Dana Ullman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDana
Richard C. Senelick, M.D.: Can Magnetic Therapy Relieve Pain?
Larry Malerba, D.O. : How Today's Medical Apartheid Is Sinking the Health Care System
Dana Ullman: Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously
Dana Ullman: Homeopathic Medicine: My 'I Have a Dream' Speech
National Fibromyalgia Association: About Fibromyalgia
Fibromyalgia Center: Symptoms, Treatments, Causes, Tests, and ...
Fibromyalgia Symptoms, Treatment, Medications, Tender Points ...
I am getting to the point where I have go through drug changes again which is scary. Not all drugs work for me. The ones I have been taking are becoming ineffective. I am eager, yet cautious, about spending much money on new therapies since so many do not work. I can say that Guafenisin has some benefits but I also have some Lupus and they do not work together very well.
You can contact a homeopath in your area and tell him - the details about your health problems and most imprtantly, about YOU as a person, your life situation, histories, etc. I feel homeopathy can help you.
Wish you a speedy cure with homeopathy.
Regards.
http://www.zippy-health.com/dr-batras-homeopathic-clinic/
The drugs used by the "scientific medicine" has killed more humanbeings than the number of deaths by Atombombs and Missiles!
A short course of prescription antifungals at $29.95 did the trick within 5 days.
Cheers!
Can you explain what Pumpan is and why the study you referenced as proof that homeopathy doesn't work is not a fair and adequate trial of homeopathy?
http://rheÂumatology.ÂoxfordjourÂnals.org/cÂontent/earÂly/2010/11Â/08/rheumaÂtology.keqÂ234/T3.expÂansion.htmÂl
I know you answered to the effect that you "didn't like the conclusion, therefore the study must be flawed" but that is not a remotely sensible scientific answer and quite unacceptable.
You also claimed the study showed everyone got better using homeopathy, but if you bothered to read the study you would see that less than a third of patients reported improvment. Can you tell us why you misread the study (if indeed you looked at it at all)?
Once I have a rational response from you I will discuss the pumpan study as you wish.
I'd be delighted to answer your fresh question, but I am still waiting for you to reply to why you think the following study was flawed and badly designed.
http://rheÂumatology.ÂoxfordjourÂnals.org/cÂontent/earÂly/2010/11Â/08/rheumaÂtology.keqÂ234/T3.expÂansion.htmÂl
I know you answered to the effect that you "didn't like the conclusion, therefore the study must be flawed" but that is not a remotely sensible scientific answer and quite unacceptable.
You also claimed the study showed everyone got better using homeopathy, but if you bothered to read the study you would see that less than a third of patients reported improvment. Can you tell us why you misread the study (if indeed you looked at it at all)?
Once I have a rational response from you I will discuss the pumpan study as you wish.
Pumpan is a combination remedy of four homeopathics including Crataegus and Convallaria majalis. Both remedies appear in repertories (and in materia medicas) as having been proven to be beneficial for hypertension.
An accurate study on homeopathics would require that a homeopath consult with the patient, assess the patient's symptoms, determine his constitution and recommend the remedy (there are about 20 for hypertension) most suited to that particular patient. Giving the same remedy to a number of patients not sharing the same symptoms or constitution thus requiring different remedies could not possibly be a true assessment of homeopathic efficacy.
In addition to that:
1. The patient must be prescribed the correct potency, dosage and frequency of dosage
in order to see good improvement. The homeopathic potencies are decimal,
centessimal and q.
Pumpan contains decimal potencies only so would not be appropriate for patients
requiring centessimal or q.
2. In treating chronic illnesses like hypertension, the strength of the remedy must be
increased progressively throughout treatment. This can be done either by increasing the
potency of pilules or by succussing a bottle of liquid remedy.
(1)
3. Finally, homeopaths prescribe follow-up remedies on occasion to enhance healing. Excluding these from a study would, again, provide only a partial picture of what homeopathy is capable of achieving.
If studies appropriate to homeopathy were carried out, they would undoubtedly (much to "skeptics'" displeasure) show that homeopathy is capable of tremendous healing--something patients and homeopaths already know from experience.
As it is, RCT's still do prove that homeopathy works -- which says a great deal about homeopathy.
As to the RA study, we'll have to agree to disagree on the validity of the conclusion. It was designed on a silly notion and the conclusion is equally silly. As I said, if all that is needed for long-lasting improvement is a talk with a doctor, why do doctors prescribe drugs? Why do patients fill, pay for and take those prescriptions? There must be a reason, don't you think?
When used as a preventative homeopathic remedies are as effective as statins in saving lives . True or false.?
Against depression homeopathic remedies are as effective as SSRIs . True or false.?
These are very popular drugs but how good is there evidence they work ?
If any of the prohomeopathy proponents here can come up with an equivalent study/studies demonstrating comparable efficacy of homeopathy I will promise to look at them, after picking myself up from the floor first.
Earlier in this thread you posted the Pumpan (for hypertension) study as proof that homeopathy doesn't work. I responded with comments and questions for you. Would you like to discuss at least one of them?
I have the impression that you don't know anything about homeopathy so here's some background material. Materia medicas list remedies and the uses for each remedy along with other details about each one. There is also a repertory that lists by body system the names of remedies used for all illnesses or injuries. These remedies are ranked according to their relative benefit as proven in 200 years of clinical use. Common or uncommon usage is noted.
There are approximately 20 well indicated remedies used for hypertension. Pumpan is NOT listed as one of them.
In fact, Pumpan is NOT listed as a homeopathic remedy AT ALL in the most comprehensive and authoritative medicas used today. These medicas discuss upwards of 3,000 commonly and uncommonly or rarely used remedies.
Can you explain why you believe that the negative findings of a tiny study on a remedy not indicated for use in hypertension prove that homeopathy doesn't work for hypertension?
Dana stated above: "Because a study was well controlled does not mean it was a fair or adequate test of homeopathy". Any comments?
just becasue dana states something does not mean it right unless you can tell me where "Aude sapere" appears on Hahnemann's gravestone and why i cannot find a translation that matches the one Dana used.
http://avilian.co.uk/
I'd be delighted to answer your fresh question, but I am still waiting for you to reply to why you think the following study we were trying to discuss was flawed and badly designed.
http://rheÂumatology.ÂoxfordjourÂnals.org/cÂontent/earÂly/2010/11Â/08/rheumaÂtology.keqÂ234/T3.expÂansion.htmÂl
I know you answered to the effect that you "didn't like the conclusion, therefore the study must be flawed" but that is not a remotely sensible scientific answer and quite unacceptable.
You also claimed the study showed everyone got better using homeopathy, but if you bothered to read the study you would see that less than a third of patients reported improvment. Can you tell us why you misread the study (if indeed you looked at it at all)?
Once I have a rational response from you I will discuss the pumpan study as you wish.
How daringly witty and original. Very funny.
"...Oddly enough, after the Horizon thing, she appears to have told a bunch of homoeopaths that the TV version of the experiment was performed wrongly, with something being added to the solution which would have prevented anything from happening. This is most odd. Surely, given that she was actually featured on the programme, if she had found out later that there was a bad flaw in the experiment, she should at least have raised a protest with the BBC, or even written to the Times or something. Not just bit**** by email to a homoeopathic club. The implication seemed to be the the BBC had nixed the experiment on purpose, which is a very serious allegation, but she just won't come out in public with it..."
That's funny, cause there ain't no "defenders of conventional medicine" in this thread.
You're presenting a strawman.
"...All I know is this - I have etc. etc. ..."
OK, so all you know is your personal anecdotes.
That's nice, but I doesn't prove anything about whether homeopathy works.
"Analysis of covariance demonstrated that the homeopathic treatment was the only significant or near-significant predictor of improvement on DSS subtests.....and the 10 most common Symptoms of MTBI (Mild Traumatic Brain Injury). These results indicate a significant improvement from the homeopathic treatment vs the control and translate into clinically significant outcomes."
J. of Head Trauma Rehabiliation (Wolters Kluwer)
"Homeopathic Treatment of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (1999)
http://journals.lww.com/headtraumarehab/Abstract/1999/12000/Homeopathic_Treatment_of_Mild_Traumatic-Brain.2.aspx
"(The Guidelines Working) group did present several evidence-based recommendations in the report titled 'Guidelines for the Pharmacologic Treatment of Neurobehavioral Sequelae of Traumatic Brain Injury'......supports the optional use of homeopathy....."
Journal of Neurotrauma
November, 2006
(where all homeopathy studies merit publication)
Did it really ?
You conveniently 'forgot' to quote the conclusions of the study:
Quoting from your link:
"..This study SUGGESTS that homeopathy MAY have a role in treating persistent MTBI.
Our findings REQUIRE large-scale, INDEPENDANT replication..."
In science lingo that means:
Dodgy un-clear result. Our results were not statistically significant so a larger study is required.
Now eleven years later we're still waiting for that "large-scale, INDEPENDANT replication".
Wonder why.
Well, not really.
THIS STUDY WAS POSITIVE FOR BENEFITS FROM HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT.
THEREFORE, HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT SHOULD BE STUDIED FURTHER SO THAT IT CAN BE FURTHER APPLIED IN THE TREATMENT OF MTBI.
Please can you tell us why you claim the rheumatoid arthritis homeopathy paper was "badly designed and flawed" ?
What is wrong with the study methodology, in your opinion?
It would be nice to engage in some fruitful scientific discussion, rather than read your spam.
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/11/08/rheumatology.keq234
If you are unable to answer, please say so, so I can stop asking you.
Do you honestly believe that talking with a doctor during an office visit can bring about long-lasting improvement in a patient's condition? And not just in one patient but in every patient in the study? If it were possible, no one would be filling prescriptions for drugs, paying for them or taking them. Poooooof ! The end of big pharma!
LOL
You don't like the conclusion
so the study must be poorly designed
and it must be pooly designed
because you don't like the conclusion.
I appricate that you have a sense of humour.
BTW:
I'm sure you'll explain why the study is "poorly designed" ???
As if.
I must actually thank you for saying this.
Firstly it demonstrates conclusively that you have not bothered to read the study.
Table 3 gives the response rates in the groups.
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/11/08/rheumatology.keq234/T3.expansion.html
For individualized homeopathy plus a consultation it was 31% response. (So much for "every patient" then!)
For consultation and fake homeopathic remediy, the response rate was identical (31%)!
So the remedies are useless.
But secondly I thank you because this study has demonstrated something else - namely that homeopathy plus an hour long individualized consultation only led to a "response" in 31% of those receiving it.
How can that be?
I thought homeopathy cured everything?
is feeding cues to another member of the congregation" Are you referring to the skeptic religious movement? There are many skeptics that say it is a religious movement so I'm assuming that is what you are referring to.
And VikingViking I can only say that your volumous comments must mean that you have a religious zeal for this. You say, quote and link to volumes and volumes of negative opinions about something you know nothing about. I would say that qualifies you for the religious nut category. So the reference is then about you.
"..There are many skeptics that say it is a religious movement.."
"..your volumous comments must mean that you have a religious zeal.."
"..that qualifies you for the religious nut category..."
LOL ...is this the best you can come up with?!
..now that you have run out of anything even remotely rationel to say.
Sorry guys. You're the one promoting a belief-system.
is feeding cues to another member of the congregation
A quote from me: " Homeopathy-studies made by homeopaths have the added corruptive
force of financial conflict of interest"
"side effects" of statins: severe neuromuscular degeneration, degeneration of the cerebellum, possibly triggers ALS
Does homeopathy work to lower cholesterol levels? Yes, it certainly does. So does vitamin therapy. My cholesterol level was reduced by 49 points with vitamins.
It's common knowledge that anti-depressants often don't work and have caused countless deaths including suicides among children.
Does homeopathy work? Beautifully and safely.
One side effect of high blood pressure meds: gout
The patient can't stop taking the blood pressure med because it doesn't really heal the body so he's got to keep taking it plus taking meds for gout and any other "side effect" caused by the blood pressure med.
Does homeopathy work? You bet it does. It brought my blood pressure down from 150/90 to 120/76. Once my blood pressure was normal I was able to stop taking the homeopathic and my pressure remained normal.
www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-research
Vince asked if homeopathy was as effective as real medicines.
You specifically started your answer with "Well Vince, to answer your questions" and then went on and did absolutely nothing of the sort. Your own personal experience of vitamins for high cholesterol does not count as evidence. Reporting the side effects of drugs is not an answer to him either.
Are you a politician in real life?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16...
"This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12...
"It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16...
"Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17...
"The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition."
www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-research
http://bit.ly/9R3TVG (2006) //patho-genetic trials
International Journal of Oncology (Spandidos)
Ruta 6 induces cell deaths in brain cancer cells: A novel treatment for human brain cancer (2003)
http://bit.ly/cM9faz
Pediatrics (American Academy of Pediatrics)
Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine (1994)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8165068