The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.
In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland's national health insurance program.
The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.
It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.
Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).
The Swiss Government's "Health Technology Assessment"
The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).
And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).
After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhöft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)
The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.
The authors of the Swiss government's report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only nine "high quality" conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Lüdtke, Rutten, 2008).
The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in "evidence based medicine," has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.
In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be "effective" or "scientifically proven," a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn't is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government's report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.
The next article will discuss further evidence provided in this report from the Swiss government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care.
REFERENCES:
Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011. http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1 (This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this book.)
Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077
Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. SwissInfo.ch, May 19, 2009. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Therapy_supporters_roll_up_sleeves_after_vote.html?cid=670064
Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6. http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673605678786.pdf
Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015. http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract
Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementärmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevölkerungstimmt über Verfassungsartikel «Zukunft mit Komplementärmedizin» ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073.
(Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Article "The future with complementary medicine"
http://www.ayurveda-association.eu/files/swiss_referendum_on_cam_-_forschkomplementmed_2009.pdf
*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.
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.
For more by Dana Ullman, click here.
For more on natural health, click here.
Follow Dana Ullman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDana
Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative ...
[Complementary and alternative medicine in primary care in ...
Then came enlightenment and rapid medical scientific advances became the order of the day.
Homeopathy remains stuck in the mindset and language of the 1800s, though it does try to borrow modern scientific terms to try and make it sound more enigmatic and believable. Like "quantum" for instance.
"As regards the second project, in the view of the authors of the meta-analyses, the available
placebo-controlled studies on homeopathy do not demonstrate any clear effect over and
above placebo."
https://biblio.parlament.ch/e-docs/139404.pdf (see page 16)
It is you who has failed to read the report I quoted from, and ended up with Egg albumen 30C all over your face.
Here is what they did:
Results of the literature analysis: The analysis of the literature involved two different projects.
(1) For each of the five complementary therapies, a comprehensive overall evaluation
(evaluation report) was prepared. (2) In addition, meta-analyses (systematic reviews including statistical evaluation of aggregated data) of placebo-controlled clinical studies were prepared for homeopathy, phytotherapy and traditional Chinese herbal therapy.
"As regards the first project, the assessment of efficacy was favourable in all of the evaluation reports. For phytotherapy and homeopathy in particular, this was based on the evaluation of published systematic reviews and randomized clinical studies.
"In the view of the evaluation committee, the interpretation of the available evidence on efficacy in the evaluation reports appears to be overly optimistic for all of the methods reviewed, and especially for neural therapy.
"As regards the second project, in the view of the authors of the meta-analyses, the available placebo-controlled studies on homeopathy do not demonstrate any clear effect over and above placebo. For phytotherapy, in contrast, a positive result is shown, as in the evaluation report, and for traditional Chinese herbal therapy an unequivocal assessment is not possible. Here, too, the validity of the conclusions of the meta-analyses should be regarded as limited from a methodological perspective."
Their first project evaluation looked at the literature on individual studies and reviews, and was positive in favor of homeopathy.
The second project, in which they conducted statistical metanalyses of available randomized controlled trials in each of the 5 alternative remedies evaluated, showed that for homeopathy there was no benefit above placebo, bu there was for phytotherapy.
Shang has nothing to do with this.
Read the citation, would you?
1. Get a fresh plant called drosea rotundifolia.
2. Get a homeopathic remedy called ammonium carb. in liquid form.
3. Put some drops of water on the plant - nothing will happen.
4. Put some drops of the remedy on the plant - the leaves of the plant will react.
You can even choose a higher C potency (I have tried 6C and 12C - what you call "nothing") and it will still work.
If I were doing it, however, I would do more tests. Such as determining the pH of the remedies vs. the water. Comparing a simple dilution series/vortex mixing with succession, both for water and for the 'remedy'. Maybe some other things.
However, even if this were to all show a positive result, it doesn't exactly mesh with homeopathy's claims. If homeopathic ammonium carb can cause a reaction on this plant (essentially saying that the homeopathic preparation contains the original substance), why wouldn't homeopathic arsenic kill people? It's a giant leap from "ultra-low dilution shaken things do something" and "like-symptoms cure like-symptoms".
That statement is a mind-blower! In fact, it's beyond mind-blowing! And after all the articles Dana's written that you've posted on and, supposedly, read.
I can only wish Olavius the best of luck in setting things straight for you.
Good scientists accept RESULTS when they are confident that their experiment was conducted well...but not the "medical fundamentals" who are deniers of good science...sad, but true.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Olavius/disinformation-homeopathy_b_969627_111676294.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DakkonA/disinformation-homeopathy_b_969627_111717469.html
He used 17 nM salt. That's plenty to cause a reaction. (Though my math is slightly off because I think I assumed NaCl at the time it was mentioned, rather than a nitrous salt.)
"It is utterly impossible to disregard the claims of homeopathy as an established form of practical medicine, as a great fact in the history of our art; we cannot ignore it… for not only do we see all
our ordinary diseases cured homeopathically, but even all the more severe and more dangerous diseases which demand by the common method prompt and strong measures to prevent a fatal issue." (Anon, Homeopathic Record Volume 1. 1855, (London Tweedie 337 Strand, Northampton J
Parton Berry Corn Exchange Parade 1856). Page 89 onwards.)
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/holmes/oliver_wendell/homeopathy/complete.html
One of his quotes, in particular, still rings true when one examines the various writings of many homeopathy supporters:
"It is true, notwithstanding, that, throughout most of their writings which I have seen, there runs a prevailing tone of great deference to Hahnemann’s opinions, a constant reference to his authority, a general agreement with the minor points of his belief, and a pretence of harmonious union in a common faith."
No mechanism.
No credible trial data.
No concrete evidence.
No reason to think it works.
You see why your and Dana's comparison is silly now?
Served by an army of willing and uninformed intellectual goons, dupes, young "scientism-ists" (sic) and pseudo-skeptics and bloggers, it has become an anti-alternative medicine intellectual cult fad to join in the attacks, often with no substantial basis in fact despite assurances about "science" and Homeopathy "evidence" or the supposed lack thereof.
Staring these critics in the face is two centuries worth of clinical reports, documentation, journal archives repeatedly showing in thousands of cases that the application of the Homeopathic methodology consistently applied in like manner under similar circumstances unleashes some sort of apparently internal curative effect.
In my opinion, attacks against Homeopathy are involved in the politics of the denial of individual freedom of medical choice which poses a grave threat to de-individualized medicine and the global corporatist interregnum which has paralyzed the health care systems of many countries while undermining and subverting democratic governmental processes. It is a kind of neo-feudalism with dark-ages like results from the intellectuals who fall prey to seductive enticements made available to academicians.
This is the same sort of infiltrating propagandistic influence such as was demonstrated recently by supposedly leaked internal papers from the "Heartland" Institute, if real, purportedly showing their intent to subvert global warming science with a deliberate campaign of disinformation, done for similar reasons by similar kinds of special interests - the control over public policy, control of information and the discrediting of opposing approaches and views even if they involve valid scientific opinion.
The difference between the Heartland thing and us is that we support the teaching of science, while you want the teaching of junk science.
Nah, the alien lizard people tend towards irrational Homeopathy skepticism. Who knows, maybe a few are posting in this group right now !
"On removing the water from the freezer, it will be observed that the block of ice, though now exposed to room temperature, will remain a block of ice for some time. Thus, there exists in water a property which enables it to "remember" for a certain amount of time that it has been kept in the freezer"
Paolo Bellavite, M.D. and Andrea Signorini, M.D., The Emerging Science of Homeopathy: Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology, 2002, pp.68.
I am not making this stuff up, I promise.
"Homeopathic therapy with Aconite for post-operative pain-agitation syndrome"
The authors comment that Aconite is an amazing cure not only for its speedy action but also for its efficacy and note that it was 95% effective in this study. They go on to say that Aconite should be kept in every recovery room and in every doctor's bag of emergency supplies.
Pediatrie, 1990
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2170921
"Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis using homeopathic preparations of common allergens in the southwest region of the U.S.: A randomized controlled trial"
The study shows that significant positive changes took place from baseline to four weeks and that no one reported adverse effects.
Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2005
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741420
And here's a great one from Iris Bell and company:
"Electroencephalographic cordance patterns distinguish exceptional clinical responders with Fibromyalgia to individualized homeopathic medicines"
This study suggests prefrontal EEG-C as an early biomarker of individualized homeopathic medicine effects in patients with FM who later exhibit exceptional outcomes with homeopathic treatment.
Bell, IR, et al.
University of Arizona
Journal of Alternative Complementary Medicine, 2004
What is it that makes it "great"? Since we've already established, repeatedly, that you are incapable of actually discussing the scientific methodology of the various "proofs" of homeopathy that you post, why should your opinion that a scientific paper is "great" carry any meaning whatsoever?
Your first link appears not to be research, but just some sort of recommendation.
Your second link isn't actually using homeopathy (low but real doses), and there are some issues with the analysis at that.
Your third link is very odd--olfactory administration? So someone can just sniff their remedy and be cured? lol
The Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital,
265/66, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road,
Kolkata-700 009.
Established: 1881
Name of University: West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata
Ownership: Indian Gov’t
Course: BHMS (Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery)
http://www.cchindia.com/php/state1ac8a.html?st=WEST+BENGAL
You might be surprised to find western docs taking classes to learn....PRAISE GOD!!
Arizona is the MECCA for holistic/alternative medicine...want to get well, come to Arizona...:-))
"Back in 2005 the interior ministry rejected the therapies, arguing they failed to meet the legal requirement of “scientific proof” of the three efficacy criteria."[http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Alternative_therapies_are_put_to_the_test.html?cid=29242484]
The only reason they backed away from that is because of a 2009 referendum [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20022-swiss-recognise-alternative-medicine--for-now.html] seemingly not due to the 2006 paper.
Does this not make you think its a bit over hyped and just a little misleading?
This was a rigged review by homeopathy proponents, and is at odd with other more objective reviews.
It is also out of date.
I you read the footnotes, "the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003."
On this point I'll agree. I've always been told to rest and drink plenty of fluids.
One anecdote is not evidence and 2000 anecdotes doesn't become daata
P.S. Just because your anecdotal memory of your cold experience is that you are always back to work in a day or two doesn't imply that the homeopathic remedy did anything at all. Google "confirmation bias" then get back to me.
Should be lots - sfter all, the condition is very common, the homeopathy remedies cost pennies, and there must be thousands of homeopaths who have been willing to take a scientific approach to proving their remedies work using proper studies, rather than relying on anecdotes.
Or am I going to be very disappointed, setting the evidence bar so "high"? (and homeopathically high, at that)
I would challenge you to only undergo medical treatment that has been proven by a placebo-controlled, randomized trial with statistically significant results and not conducted by an entity with vested interests in the outcome. Good luck with that.
Case studies can be useful but still need to be taken with a grain of salt, depending on what other things could have resulted in what was observed, whether the reporter was him/herself biased, etc.
Here's an example of an actual case study. Somehow I don't think your comment above compares. Your comment isn't a case study, it is an anecdote. A case study contains detailed information, but also, don't necessarily imply causation, only attempts to detail facts. Do you, perhaps, have some publish case studies that mirror the amount of detail you provided above (i.e. subjective report of cold one day, gone next, no further details or analysis).
"You cannot simply dismiss something that you don’t understand by calling it “anecdote.”"
So, Bob has a cold. He trips on the sidewalk that day and falls into a pile of dog excrement. The next day, his cold gone, he goes onto the internet to report his experience and proclaim his new cure for the common cold. A few weeks go by and a couple other reports of positive anecdotal results trickle in. Think any case studies will be published?
"I would challenge you to only undergo medical treatment that has been proven by..."
I believe that was sufficiently addressed above by ColdCalculus.