Opening remarks…
The primary purpose of this article is to encourage a stronger commitment from doctors and parents to consider using safer medical care for infants and children FIRST before resorting to more dangerous treatments. One would hope and assume that doctors and parents would have a natural inclination to make the safety of these young human souls a significant and sincere priority, but sadly, the power and propaganda of Big Pharma has inappropriately turned this equation around and made it seem that doctors and parents are putting their children at risk if they don’t prescribe powerful drugs first. I personally disagree with this assumption and sincerely hope that people consider this health issue to be of primary importance today.
I certainly realize that the evidence that I present below on the epidemic proportions of “medical child abuse” is somewhat inflammatory, but due to the fact that this issue is presently being ignored by so many doctors and parents, a little “inflammation” may be a necessary symptom that will lead to great attention to this problem and perhaps to some concrete solutions to it.
Although many people consider American health care to be “the best in the world,” the World Health Organization has ranked the United States to be the 37th (!) in the world in the “performance of the overall health system” and 72nd (!!) in “overall level of health” (of the 191 member countries). American health care may be the most expensive, but there is no evidence to prove that increased expense leads to improved health status.
When one looks at the countries where health status and overall health scores the highest, they are countries in which there are a significant number of physicians and other health care practitioners who use herbal medicines, homeopathic remedies, acupuncture and nutritional treatments. Perhaps American doctors and patients would benefit from a significant change in health care practices that are not only considerably safer than modern medical treatments, but that also seem to create better health care status.
A newly published review of the six leading medical journals uncovered a truly shocking observation: “No information on severe adverse events and withdrawal of patients owing to an adverse event was given in 27.1% and 47.4% of articles, respectively.”[1] When one considers that this review only analyzed the “best” medical journals, we can and should seriously worry about the safety of many drugs that are used today, and we should express real indignation when doctors prescribe two or more together (unless they were formally tested together) or when doctors prescribe them for conditions for which they have not been tested (called “off-label”).
Ultimately, although physicians assume that they are practicing “scientific medicine,” most drugs today are not tested on infants or children, and most children and adults are prescribed more than one drug at a time (and drugs are very rarely tested for efficacy or safety when used in combination with other drugs). These common practices lead one to assume that modern medicine is not adequately scientific, and these practices may be part of the explanation for the poor health status of Americans.
We all know people who have children who have benefited from conventional medical care, but sadly, we all also know people whose children have been harmed by it. The most famous words of the father of medicine, Hippocrates, are “First, do no harm.” This dictum was directed at doctors, but it is as appropriate for parents. Sadly, however, our children are being put in front of harm’s way with our present, almost callous overuse of powerful drugs for our young ones.
The bottom line is that too many physicians and parents are giving drugs to children that have not been proven to be either safe or effective for them. It is important for parents to know and to remind doctors that it is widely acknowledged that drugs act differently on the bodies of infants and children than on adults. And yet, it is extremely common for doctors to prescribe powerful drugs to infants and children and even prescribe more than one drug at a time, despite the fact that drugs are very rarely evaluated scientifically in combination with other drugs.
The FDA recently withdrew from the marketplace many popular cold and cough drugs that were marketed for infants and children,[2] but the problem of doctors over-prescribing other more dangerous and unproven drugs for children and the inappropriate overuse of over-the-counter drugs in children by parents is a very significant health problem. One must wonder if the increase in psychiatric disorders, immune dysfunction, autism and various other chronic diseases result from the use of the drugs that have not yet been proven to be either safe or effective for our infants and children.
Most consumers do not know that many drugs commonly prescribed for children today are not tested on them.[3] A 2002 survey in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) found that almost one-half of children were prescribed a drug that was “unlicensed” or “off-label” prescriptions for children.[4] A 2007 study of over 350,000 children found that a shocking 78.7% of children in hospitals are prescribed drugs that the FDA has not approved for use in children.[5] If this isn’t shocking enough, it is seriously problematic to report that a survey in England found that 90% of infants were prescribed drugs that were not tested for safety or efficacy in infants.[6]
If the off-label use for drugs was not found to be dangerous, it would not be a problem. However, the use of off-label drug use is significantly associated with adverse drug reactions. In fact, there is almost a 350% increase in adverse drug reactions in children prescribed an off-label drug than children who were prescribed a drug that had been tested for safety and efficacy.[7] The use of drugs for infants and children that have not been proven to be safe constitutes a type of “medical child abuse.”
Despite some significant gaps in research and knowledge about the safety and efficacy of drugs for children, the number of drugs prescribed for children has jumped significantly in recent years. In the U.S., the number of prescription drugs for children with asthma increased 46.5% from 2002 to 2005. In this same time, the number of prescription drugs for children with ADD/ADHD increased 40.5%, and even the number of prescription drugs for lowering cholesterol in children increased by 15%.[8]
In 2007, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported significant increases in childhood chronic diseases.[9] Since 1960, there has been a 280% (!) increase in the “limitation of activity due to a health condition of more than 3 months’ duration.” This article also noted a shadow side of increased vaccination usually ignored by physicians and the media: “decreased exposure to viral infections in early childhood…may provide less and less normal stimulation of the immune system with more susceptibility to allergies in later years.”
First and foremost, physicians have to STOP prescribing as many drugs as they are prescribing, and must significantly reduce the number of off-label prescribing of drugs for infants and children. I am not suggesting that they stop the use of all off-label prescribing, but that they work to significantly reduce these more risky prescriptions.
Because they sometimes feel pressure from patients who want drugs (or something) to help their infant or child, doctors need to warn parents that many drugs have not yet been adequately tested for safety and efficacy for children. Doctors need to become better educators so that parents can better decide which risks they wish to take either with conventional drugs or various safer alternatives.
Doctors also need to begin learning about safer treatment methods. Although some “alternative” methods may not yet be adequately tested for efficacy (usually because Big Pharma cannot make as much money making and selling these treatments), natural therapies certainly have a much better safety profile, and there is a body of experience historically and internationally to suggest that many (not all) natural treatments can aid in the healing of many pediatric ailments. In honor of the Hippocratic dictum, “first, do no harm,” doctors need to explore and even exhaust safer methods before resorting to the highly risky treatment modalities.
Because the FDA recently withdrew from the marketplace many popular cold and cough medicines, more parents and physicians should explore safer homeopathic and botanical alternatives. One of the books that I co-authored with Stephen Cummings, MD, Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines, has been the most popular guidebook to using homeopathic medicine. Besides explaining how to choose a homeopathic medicine that fits the sick person’s unique syndrome of symptoms, this book is also widely appreciated because it provides detailed guidelines that define when it is medically safe to use a safer alternative treatment or when medical supervision is recommended.
Another useful, though more technical resource was just published by Oxford University Press (OUP), one of the most highly respected publishers of medical textbooks and medical journals. OUP has begun to publish a series of textbooks on “integrative medicine,” which is the emerging field of utilizing the best of the various natural treatment modalities and the best of conventional medicine. OUP just published an Integrative Pediatrics (edited by two pediatricians, Timothy Culbert, MD, and Karen Olness, MD).
Nowadays, virtually every leading conventional medical school in America has a course in “integrative medicine” (or alternative and complementary medicine).[10] Although these courses are generally just an overview and introduction to the various “alternative therapies,” they provide good seeds for the medical students to determine which treatments should be a part of the medical care they will later provide. One way to predict the future of medicine is to ask medical students what interests them.
In 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published a position paper acknowledging the widespread use of alternative and complementary therapies for children and encouraging doctors to discuss options with parents.[11] An AAP survey found that 54% of pediatricians in the US agreed that “pediatricians should consider the use of all potential therapies, not just those of mainstream medicine.”
Doctors, however, need to understand that alternative therapies are not just a different “treatment,” but also a different approach to understanding and treating whole person health care. Acupuncture, ayurveda, and homeopathic medicines provide time-tested and historically verified benefits that deserve the investigation of doctors and parents everywhere who want to use safer methods before resorting to more risky treatments. And there is a small but significant (and growing) body of research to confirm the efficacy of these systems of medicine, despite the strong tendency for skeptics to ignore this body of evidence.
Parents have to START asking their doctors if the drugs they are prescribing for their children have formally been found to be safe for them. If more than one drug is recommended, parents should ask for the evidence that these two drugs, taken together, are safe and effective. Parents will benefit from learning when some type of medical treatment is truly necessary because many common ailments do not require medical attention, therefore safer home treatment methods can and should be considered.
The bottom line is that there is increasing interest in alternative and complementary treatments for children. A survey in Canada published in Pediatrics (2007) found that more than half of the children who visited a university-affiliated hospital had received alternative and complementary medicines.[12] Homeopathic medicine was by far the most popular treatment, used by 39% of the families.
In 2002, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported that 75% of Germans have used complementary or natural medicine.[13] They also reported that 5,700 doctors received specialized training in natural medicine, with this number doubling to 10,800 by 2000. Homeopathic medicine is practiced by 4,500 medical doctors in Germany, almost twice as many as did so in 1994. The German government conducted this survey, discovering a 33% reduction in sick days if people used natural therapies, especially homeopathy or acupuncture.
Although homeopathic medicine is not well known in the U.S., homeopathy has maintained a unique international presence that has included appreciation and advocacy for many of the most respected cultural heroes of the past 200 years, including 11 U.S. Presidents and scores of world leaders (ranging from Gandhi to Tony Blair), six popes, numerous European royalty, literary greats, sports superstars, corporate leaders, as well as a wide range of first class physicians and scientists.[14]
In reference to homeopathy, it is common for skeptics of homeopathy to purposefully misinform others that “there is no research that proves that homeopathy works.” Such misinformation is typical of Big Pharma shills and closed-minded skeptics who revel in confusing the public.
In fact, one of the most serious public health problems in the developing world today is diarrhea, a condition that claims the lives of several million kids each year as a result of dehydration. Three double-blind and placebo-controlled trials have shown efficacy of treatment from homeopathic care.[15] The number one reason that children in the U.S. seek medical treatment is for ear infections, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has sought to discourage doctors from prescribing antibiotics due to their questionable efficacy and potential problems. There is some good evidence that homeopathic medicines are effective for this common ailment.[16] There have also been several trials showing efficacy of homeopathic treatment for children with ADD/ADHD.[17]
Ultimately, both doctors and parents need to educate themselves about safer methods of treatment for the short-term as well as long-term health of our blessed young ones.
Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of 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. Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.
REFERENCES:
[1] Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of Safety Results in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1756-1761. http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/19/1756
[2] Aguilera L. Pediatric OTC Cough and Cold Product Safety. US Pharmacist 2009;34(7):39-41. http://www.uspharmacist.com/content/c/14137/
[3] Australian Parliament’s Committee on Children and Young People—Inquiry into the Use of Prescription Drugs and Over-the-counter Medications in Children and Young People.Report 11/52. May 2002.
[4] Jong GW, Eland IA, Sturkenboom MCJM, van den Anker JN, and Stricker BHC. Unlicensed and off label prescription of drugs to children: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2002 June 1; 324(7349): 1313–1314.
[5] Shah SS, Hall M, Goodman DM, et al. Off-label Drug Use in Hospitalized Children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(3):282-290.
[6] Conroy S, McIntyre J, Choonara I. Unlicensed and off label drug use in neonates. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 1999;80:F142-F145. doi:10.1136/fn.80.2.F142
[7] Horen B, Montastruc JL, and Lapeyre-mestre M. Adverse drug reactions and off-label drug use in paediatric outpatients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 54(6); Dec 2002, 665–670. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.t01-3-01689.x.
[8] Cox ER, Halloran DR, Homan SM, Welliver S, and Mager DE. Trends in the Prevalence of Chronic Medication Use in Children: 2002–2005. Pediatrics. 122,5 November 2008, e1053-e1061. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0214
[9] Perrin JM, Bloom SR, Gortmaker SL. The Increase of Childhood Chronic Conditions in the United States. JAMA. 2007;297:2755-2759.
[10] Consortium of Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine. http://www.imconsortium.org/members/home.html
[11] Kemper KJ, Vohra S, Walls R. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Pediatrics. Pediatrics 2008;122;1374-1386. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2008-2173. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/122/6/1374.pdf
[12] Jean D, Cyr C. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in a general pediatric clinic. Pediatrics. July 2007; 120 (1):e138-e141.
[13] Tuffs, Annette, Three out of Four Germans Have Used Complementary or Natural Remedies, BMJ, November 2 2002;325:990.
[14] Ullman, Dana. The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2007.
[15] Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhoea: combined results and meta-analysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2003; 22: 229-234.
[16] Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2001; 20: 177183.
[17] Frei, H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr., July 27,2005164:758-767.
Follow Dana Ullman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDana
Dr. Maoshing Ni: Tame Your Allergy and Breathe Easy, Naturally
Cicero mom accused of medical abuse of her 9-year-old son
Three Reasons You May Be Uneasy With Health Reform
Health Care Study: Lack Of Insurance Has Led To 17,000 Child Deaths
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5P5Npb6NmM
It is out of control of the People and in the hands of BIG Pharma that this is happening. The only way to stop it is for each parent to research and to study the side effects and make life long choices for their children. Chose well live well...Let's stop drugging children, there are so many ways to treat a child naturally, Homeopathy, nutrition, massage, Chiropractic or sometimes just love.
I have a problem with his recommendation of homeopathy. There is evidence for homeopathy, but is greatly out weighed by evidence against it. Check out the meta-analysis studies--not one remedy has been conclusively shown to be more effective than a placebo. The meta studies found that the higher the quality the study the more likely the effect is placebo. This is the opposite of what you would find if there was an effect. You need to look at all the evidence, just like the theme of this article. Not a single remedy has gone through FDA approval.
www.atms.com.au/homeopathy/Homeopathy the scientific proofs of efficacy.pdf
My 12 years of personal experience with homeopathy is that it is a wonderfully healing system of medicine--gentle but dynamic, without side effects and causing no iatrogenic diseases.
There are individuals putting so much energy into talking about the studies behind homeopathy and writing so prolifically that one wonders what the motivation is.
Not just a few comments, but long comments with many distorted ideas and little factual basis against alternative health modalities.
I have never seen anyone doing this with pharmaceutical drugs on the blogs. Even some defending Vioxx and thalidomide still as "working" and desecrating the 27,000 Americans killed by Vioxx. Strange isn't it.
It is more than a little puzzling that anyone would put so much effort into trying to dissuade people from trying and using a form of medicine which can be of such great benefit to our children (and ourselves as well). These commenters also seem to want to discredit all natural therapies. My personal experience is that homeopathy has been a literal life saver for me in my treatment of serious, chronic illnesses such as neuropathy. It has been equally great in treating acute illnesses and injuries. My friends and family have had the same success with it that I've had.
Anyone who wants to ensure the health of their children on all levels -- physical, mental and emotional -- could not do better than to investigate natural therapies including homeopathy.
Why must your arguments be based on falsities? If you read the comments that myself, Principaldad, and StThomas (the ones I assume you are referring to as we have been most prolific on this blog) have said nothing about natural remedies. In fact, I have stated on several occasions that I think natural therapies have potential if tested for safety and efficacy as any other treatment is. Principaldad posted several links to supportive information about natural therapies.
None of us have argued against natural therapies in the comments to this article. Nor have any of us argued in favor of pharmaceuticals, in fact, the comments I have made have agreed that there is too much prescription of pharmaceuticals and that stronger controls are needed for efficacy and safety.
What we argue against is the assertion that high dilution homeopathy has any value. The scientific consensus is exactly the opposite and if you understood the basic scientific method, you would understand why that is so.
Please, continue to level the false charges. It does nothing to enhance your argument and only makes your argument look less and less valid.
To address your accustion , I generally pick one or two stories on this site at a time and post sporadically. It is clear from my comment history that my interest in stories is broad. The other person here whom you are obviously talking about appears to do the same, but limits himself mostly to science topics (although not always to medical topics). He has stated his profession.
What you are seeing here is quite common on popular blogs on this site. A few posters will stick to certain stories (even if there are other similar stories that they don't post to). Yourself and ChristyRed are examples of that as well (you both comment almost exclusively to homeopathic topics).
As for Vioxx and thalidomide, you are taking a side conversation out of context. Those drugs did provide the effects that they were tested for. They also had absolutely unacceptable side effects. The comments about them were not "defending". The other poster and myself were merely discussing a fact and refencing the risk/benefit considerations that take place in all medicine (including homeopathy).
Pharmacological effects are far more complex than "good" or "bad". And that goes for natural products as well as chemical pharmaceuticals.
But regardless, whether they work or not, the information about the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals adds zero evidence that homeopathic treatments work.
No, the problem you face is that there are people who do know about "homeopathic" and "natural" (whatever that is meant to describe) "medicine," but who do not exhibit a sheer ignorance of chemistry, physics and logic.
To put it bluntly, people who believe that someone who cannot face critical analysis of their positions, and who yet cannot change their beliefs despite evidence contrary to those beliefs, are engaged in "faith." And faith healing has no position as a part of intelligent, reasoned discussion of health issues.
These individuals repeat the same ill-informed comments, and they work hard to misinform people. It is a tad ironic that they commonly assert that there is “no research on homeopathy†which simply proves that these people did not even read the above article.
I hope that readers will see through their thin veil, and I hope that these chronic commenters will consider trying to improve the level of dialogue here.
Please do not equate homeopathy with natural medicine. Natural medicine, using herbs and extracts, is at least basic in the reality of physics, chemistry, and biology. Many of the natural remedies have potential as many pharmaceuticals are themselves derived from plants. Homeopathy is a different story altogether requiring the complete upheval of what science knows about physics, chemistry, and biology.
This coincides with descriptions on homeopathic web sites about 1c and 1x solutions. It seems that not all homeopathic remedies are ultra diluted.
Answer: It would take decades of drop, wait and repeat.
In reading my comment above, change "decades" to "milleniums."
There are a host of logical inconsistencies in homeopathic theory. No homeopathic supporter ever addresses those or even begins to offer hypotheses to answer those questions.
For example, if water has memory, then why does water not remember everything it has ever touched? Therefore, every drop of water we drink is contaminated with homeopathic quantities of virtually every substance on earth.
If water has memory, then how do you start with a pure enough version of water to dilute to homeopathic concentrations in the first place. How would you test that the water you are using is, in fact, not already a potential homeopathic treatment for something else?
If homeopathic remedies increase in potency as the dilution is greater, wouldn't they eventually become extremely dangerous, even deadly, if you kept diluting further and further?
The ocean is not exactly an FDA or otherwise approved facility. Would you honestly propose doing something similar in the preparation or other medicines? I think not.
FYI - I am not advocating for the use of homeopathics (although it seems that I have at least read some of the german/america/canadian/japanese/indian studies that seem to be unaware of) but rather pointing out an illogical and ill conceived objection.
I have a friend whose daughter was born with severe medical issues and her doctors treat her like their own private living, breathing laboratory. Her mom is understandably frustrated. Her daughter cannot communicate so it is difficult for her to determine if her child is sick or just having an off day. But her pediatricians rarely tell her to wait it out. I think they feel bad for her and want to make a show of caring by constantly trying new drugs and treatments. Her child is on countless medications, many of which are off-label and not recommended for children.
I am especially concerned with prescribing new drugs to children. Due to ethical constraints, drugs are not tested on children and due to the constraints of experimental designs, they are also rarely tested in combination with other drugs. In general, the dangers of drug combination and prescribing to children are only discovered after drugs are approved, hence the reason warnings are often added after drugs have been on the market for a few years. For this reason, I say most people should avoid prescription medication for children unless the illness is serious or the child is at high risk for complications.
The testing of the H1N1 vaccine was sort of that way. They did do testing on pregnant women and young children. But they knew they had do because it wasn't known how much vaccine was needed for protection. US say kids under 10 1/2 dose wait 21 days 1/2 dose and 10 days later excellent protection.
Canada's decision to use adjuvant looks wise. Officially still follow US. However, Spanish studies say 6 months and up get very good protection on just 1/2 dose wait 21 days.
Finally, Doctors aren't like many alternative practitioners, they only sell their time, not their time and products they've marked up.
Flu Vaccination: Safe, Effective and the right thing to do to protect someone like a
Warren Schor of Ithaca, New York
"Students and faculty gathered in Sage Chapel {Cornell University] yesterday to remember the life of Warren Schor ’11, who died last month from complications relating to H1N1 influenza."
http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2009/10/21/friends-and-administrators-remember-warren-schor-’11
http://www.davidrolle.com/davidrolle/warren
We could test the ability of homeopathic remedies to induce tolerance of B and T cells or the effect of dilute substances on mast cell degranulation. There are a whole host of potential studies that could be performed and are just waiting for someone to try them.
Let's assume that all pharmaceutical companies are evil and only desire to profit, not to help people. And then let's assume that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, as effective as its supporters claim. If both of these statements are true, then why are pharmaceutical companies not trying to get into the homeopathic remedy market?
It would seem to me a highly profitable endeavor. Pharmaceutical companies would no longer have to spend billions on research, development, pre-clinical safety testing, and both clinical safety and efficacy trials. They could simply just turn their giant marketing machinery to putting out homeopathic remedies and even though they are cheaper to market, they are also much cheaper to develop and produce. Would seem to me that any greedy corporation would jump at the chance to make a quick buck on a effective treatment.
But the reality is that no pharmaceutical company is trying to do that. Which means that at least one of the two premises are false. Either pharmaceutical companies are not inherently evil or homeopathic remedies are not as effective as their proponents claim. But I would imagine that if all a pharmaceutical company cared about was profits, they would still enter the homeopathic arena even if the treatments do not work, since they would still be making money off people. So really, I would think that both of the initial premises are false.
His statement was, "They could simply just turn their giant marketing machinery to putting out homeopathic remedies and even though they are cheaper to market, they are also much cheaper to develop and produce."
It is a compelling argument. Think of it like aspirin (originally natural but now made artificially). It is next to impossible to find a small company that manufactures aspirin.
An alternative herb or extract can be assessed to determine the compounds causing the effect and then those compounds can be patented.
Part of the reason for high prices is recouping the cost for research, development, clinical, and safety trials, which can cost billions and take a multitude of years to get the necessary data and approvals. With homeopathy a drug company would not have those expenditures so could simply rework its production machinery to produce homeopathic compounds, not very difficult to simply dilute something over and over again. Plus there are no testing requirements or efficacy requirements that need to be demonstrated.
A pharmaceutical company could most likely undercut current homeopathy costs since they could produce the products cheaper due to large scale processing equipment. They could sell for cheaper and make greater profits than homeopaths currently do.
Now if both of those initial ideas are true, why aren't phamaceutical companies actively persuing research into homeopathic remedies or simply developing and mass marketing these remedies? It would seem to me that pharmaceutical companies are in prime position in terms of market share, advertising ability, and production capacity to basically corner the market on these homeopathic treatments. I'm sure they could make a killing with little to no research costs, no need for human clinical trials, and a great safety profile. If greed is truly the sole motivator of these companies, why do they not persue such a lucrative avenue for treatment? Since that isn't occurring, one of the inital postulates must be false, so either corporations are not all evil and greedy or homeopathy doesn't work.
My bet is that there are some ethical lines even an evil corporation won't cross.
According to a doc who works for me who has taken homeopathy courses (in order to better understand what some of her patients are talking about and be able to knowledgably advise them - so please don't start tossing bombs my way - this is a rational and compassionate thing for a doc to do), not all homeopathics are harmless.
The theory behind the application of all but the smallest doses, as I understand it so if I am wrong please don't flame me (too much) is that a total picture of the patients physical, mental, and emotional health must be taken to find the right remedy. In some cases, the wrong remedy can cause some harms, although usually not of the lasting type.
Just my 2 cents.
What I have issues with are the extremely high dilutions of substances, to the point where no molecules of a substance remains in the vast majority of the remedies. In order for these to demonstrate effects, there would have to be significant alterations in the laws and understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology. This makes the a priori plausibility of homeopathy working extremely low and therefore extraordinary evidence is required to prove such claims. No such extraordinary evidence exists. If it ever surfaces, I will happily say, "They were right".
Steve Connor, Science Editor
The Independent
12/08/03
I have used it for strep, mastitis, colds, roseola, flu, bruises you name it. It works. For those that name call or need something else for proof, you should try it then write about it.
Dana, Thanks for all you do!
How about if I name something that doesn't get better on it's own quickly.
Let's look at that impressive list of yours shall we?
*Strep lasts 3 to 5 days.
*Mastitis' primary treatment is...rubbing the breast. Really, that's the primary treatment for it. You know what's another one? Drinking lots of fluids.
*Cold. Need I say more?
*Roseola quickly goes away on it's own anyway. Has no treatment, doesn't need one.
*Flu. What are you supposed to do when you have to flu? Drink lots of fluids. What does homeopathy involve? Drinking water.
*Bruises. Are you serious? You had to really scrape the bottom of the example barrel for that one, huh?
I'm glad I don't live in a family where medicine isn't allowed.
"Homeopathy has been around for hundreds of years and has been effective in epidemics as well."
What epidemic was it effective against? A massive thirst outbreak?
And what does it being old (1790) have to do with it working? People used to drill holes in your skull to cure illness waaaay before that. Maybe you should try that, it must be even better because it's older.
You know what real "Medical Child Abuse" is? Not taking your kid to a doctor when they're sick and instead giving them herbs and water.
That was too funny.
Allopathic drugs must undergo rigorous testing because they can be very dangerous and toxic. It would be unethical to give potential poisons to people without thorough testing. People die from taking these drugs.
Homeopathic remedies aren't poisons; if you take the wrong remedy nothing untoward happens.
To those who call homeopathy quackery, there are plenty of examples of allopathic quackery. One of the most dangerous examples is giving antibiotics for viral infections. As a nurse, I have seen my share of side effects. Just walk into any nursing home and you will see them, too.
I began my college career as a pharmacy major. My pharmacology class is why I turn to alternative medicine first.
For most of the last 15 years my family hasn't had health insurance. Homeopathy has kept us out of the ER and doctor's office, and saved us a ton of money.
In what field of science is homeopathy based?
And using a myriad of drugs as a preventative doesn't sound very scientific nor logical but speculative. It does sell a lot more antibiotics though.
If it is, then, and remember that I am not an expert on this but according to a doc in my clinic who has studies this subject (yes, to better advise patients who kept asking about it - she is someone who doesn't like not having solid answers so she took some classes to get a handle on the subject matter) homeopathy is most supposed to be applied in non acute situations.
So it is kind of like comparing what you do to what an expert in metabolic diseases does, isn't it?