This is a list of people so great their work was beyond understanding
Most people on this list were so far advanced that they were opposed, ousted, rejected, belittled, discarded and science will always try to disprove their work or steer you away from them.
In the Middle Ages, the CHURCH oppressed & suppressed, they persecuted & prosecuted free & progressive thinkers, anyone that opposed them, anyone who's work they could not understand & anyone they perceived a threat. Since then, that OPPRESSIVE role has been taken over by organised SCIENCE. For the past 400 years SCIENCE HAS BEEN SUPPRESSING, PERSECUTING & PROSECUTING EXACTLY SUCH INTELLIGENT PROGRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS!
In my view Science is an insult to knowledge, it is backward and oppressive and it kept us in the dark ages until now.
Science only tries to investigate what others already know & that cannot be understood by scientists. High Incarnates like these greats were centuries ahead of their time, and they changed the World forever.
They proved my late brother's statement that "NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, but some things are just highly unlikely."
The interesting thing about people like those mentioned here is that science would rather oppose them and try to disprove them, to conjure up disinformation to warrant their attempts to prove them wrong, than learn from them. It has always amazed me how puny science can be in that they would follow some misguided skeptic anti everything so-called scientist who understands nothing of this world, yet they oppose those that were so highly advanced and whom we could and should learn from. It is irrational to say the least. They're still on the train of evolution, searching for the origins of humans on Earth, while the answers have been laid out before them so many times over and over and over by so many people and so many sources.
What is the sense of possessing so much data and zero knowledge. We are studying more and more of the same and discovering nothing of applicable value. Instead of utilising what had been given to us we are allowing science to oppress us, just because they are unable to understand anything they had not read, and that was not written by some professor with a good memory.
We have had people that had come to this World to teach us, to guide us and to provide us with unlimited knowledge and insight and we discard them due to dogma, either some religious dogma or scientific dogma. Have you ever considered just how blinded people are thanks to science's misguided teachings on evolution? Due to this limited dogma's and paradigms in which the churches and science are stuck we are denied so much.
There is ZERO ZILCH NOTHING of value knowing ANYTHING that someone like Richard Dawkins had said or written, it adds NOTHING to anything or anyone. It is of the utmost importance that we study the work of the so-called dissidents, those greats that are ignored, ousted and denied by organised science. Those are the people that add to our knowledge.
"You know you were successful in life when the day you die people do NOT miss you." - Dr. Myles Munroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Munroe)
The above statement relates to the sharing of knowledge. If you had shared all your knowledge unselfishly and freely, if you had shared your love in abundance you would have fulfilled all the needs to those around you. If after your departure from this world people repeatedly say "I miss him/her, because I still wanted to get this or that info", "I wish he/she was here to explain this or that to me", "I always wanted to ask him about this or that", then you failed in this life, because you did not share all your knowledge.
If you had been successful you would have shared all your knowledge so freely and openly that nothing is missing, that we do not need to miss you, because of gaps in the info you left us, because you shared everything with us, THAT is being successful.
Knowledge is what builds the World, what develops and grows the World and any knowledge that we possess must be shared with mankind BEFORE we die so people would not miss us for a lack of that knowledge.
In this sense We need to weigh people on this list objectively. One of the most successful people was Nikola Tesla, because he wanted to share everything, to share his knowledge for a better world, to provide the world with free, clean energy. It was the work of organised science and greed that prevented us from having all that knowledge today. That knowledge, which he wanted to give to us openly and freely, was withheld and even destroyed by higher powers.
Nikola Tesla is one of the the greatest engineers to ever have walked the planet, but he was oppressed and suppressed. His work should be the basis of all science and engineering education and training. Each and every person on earth should know his name, should have been taught about him and his work. If his ORIGINAL work is shared and deliberately distributed, someone out there among us would synchronise with it and build on it.
Nikola tesla was successful because he wanted and was willing to share his knowledge and he cannot be accused of failure, because politics, commerce and science withheld it from us.
Probably the most successful person on the list in this respect is Samuel Hahnemann, because he shared all the knowledge he possessed successfully. There were things he himself did not understand at the time and which he obviously could not share, but if he did have the knowledge he would have. He also has something else in common with Nikola Tesla and that is that he wished to share it with the whole world. He wanted the whole world to have access to his discoveries and he wanted to improve the whole world with he. He was not in the least shelfish in his sharing of knowledge pertaining to Homeopathy and health. He gave the world the most successful, most advanced, safest, most gentle form of medicinal therapeutics and called it Homeopathy. He was fortunate in that his knowledge spread and was distributed faster than it could be suppressed. Ever attempt by organised science and big pharma to suppress Homeopathy had failed and it will continue to fail forever. The simple reason for this is that good will always triumph above evil. Long after the world economy had collapsed and big pharma had disappeared as a result, Homeopathy will live on. What organised science, the media and big pharma do not consider is that Homeopathy is a knowledge and knowledge can never disappear. Big pharma sells medicine and medicine is a business and when the economy collapses it will disappear, but knowledge will stand, it will remain. Homeopathy being knowledge can be shared freely, drugs cannot. Hahnemann brought knowledge to this world and shared that knowledge freely.
In my opinion Hahnemann is the most successful of all on my list and Tesla is his equal, because we miss Tesla only due to the damage caused by science and commerce. Science and commerce were successful in their attempts to destroy much of Tesla's work and it is lost forever and for that we cannot blame Tesla himself.
Nikola Tesla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Edward Leedskalnin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Leedskalnin
Samuel Hahnemann http://www.biocura.co.za/hom_in_per.html
Victor Shauberger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Shauberger
Thomas Henry Moray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Moray
John Hutchison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison
Nicolae Vasilescu-Karpen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Vasilescu-Karpen
The Lord Jesus Christ http://www.ccel.org/bible/
Enoch http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/enochsecrets.html
Leonardo da Vinci http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Georges Lakhovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lakhovsky
Rudolph Steiner http://www.rsarchive.org/#IDX04
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe
Immanuel Velikovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
Showing posts with label Homeopathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homeopathy. Show all posts
Thursday, 3 May 2012
Friday, 27 April 2012
Homeopathic Infertility Research
Homeopathy. 2002 Jul;91(3):133-44.
Individualized homeopathic therapy for male infertility.
Gerhar I,Wallis E.
Outpatient Clinic for Complementary Medicine, Department for Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproduction, Gynecological Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Germany.
frauenklinik_ambulanz_nhv@med.uni-heidelberg.de
This prospective observational pilot study investigated the effect of individualized homeopathy on male infertility based on sperm count, hormone values and general health. Forty-five subfertile men were treated with single homeopathic remedies for an average of 10.3 months. The drugs were prescribed on the basis of the overall symptomatic situation. The variables 'sperm density', 'percentage of sperm with good progressive motility' and 'density of sperm with good propulsive motility' improved significantly, especially in cases of oligoasthenozoospermia. The general health of patients improved significantly. The following factors emerged as positive predictors of therapy success: alcohol consumption below 30 g/day, non-smoking, the presence of less than five dental amalgam fillings, no exposure to noxious substances at the workplace and no previous inflammatory genital diseases. The factors stress, age above 36, high coffee consumption and long duration of unwanted childlessness did not have a negative impact on therapy outcome in this study. The rate of improvement in sperm count through homeopathic therapy is comparable to the improvement achieved by conventional therapy, so that individualized-homeopathic treatment may be considered a useful alternative to conventional treatment of subfertile men. For further investigation, a randomised, therapy-controlled clinical study with parallel group design would be useful (homeopathic therapy vs conventional andrological therapy).
PMID: 12322866 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Infertility
BOTTOMLINE: Fertility in men and women is a complex process, and the treatment of infertility requires treatment by a professional homeopath. Although no studies have yet been conducted on women, one pilot study of subfertile men found good results from professional homeopathic treatment.
A prospective unblinded pilot study was conducted on 45 subfertile men who were treated with individually chosen homeopathic medicines based on the psychophysical symptom syndrome each experienced. The main outcome measures were improved sperm density, improved percentage of sperm with good propulsive motility, density of sperm with good motility. Other outcome measures included sperm vitality, morphology, and the ratio of sperm with global motility.
This study was conducted at the Outpatient Clinic for Complementary Medicine at the University Women’s Hospital of Heidelberg (Germany). The men admitted into the study has to have two or more years of unwanted childlessness, two pathological sperm counts not influenced by therapy, at least 3 months without andrological therapy, and patient consent.
The men average age was 35.5 years (range 28-47). The couples suffered from unwanted childlessness for an average of 4.5 years (range: 2-11 years).
Thirty of the men reported some type of genital disease: 20 suffered from varicocele, 5 from undescended testes, 15 from urogenital inflammation, 1 from coital impotence, and 5 sustain a previous genital trauma. [The individualized homeopathic treatment included a detailed interview in which the patient was queried about his unique symptoms. The homeopath ranked in a hierarchy those symptoms that were in the emotional and mental realm and those that affected his entire body, as distinct from those that were local symptoms. The symptoms were ordered by intensity and prominence.] All men were prescribed a single homeopathic medicine in the LM 18 potency, and each man shook the bottle before taking three drops once daily. The patients were asked to keep a diary of any symptoms, and they were asked to avoid any other therapy, except in emergencies. The men were asked to abstain from caffeine, but if this was not possible, they were asked to avoid taking it within 1-2 hours of taking the homeopathic medicine. The patients attended the clinic every six weeks for review. If the medicine was still indicated, the drug was re-prescribed at a one-step higher potency. If not, a different homeopathic medicine was prescribed.
Homeopathic treatment lasted on average 10.3 months (range: 6-21.5). Seven patients dropped out after 2-5 months. A total of 26 homeopathic medicines were prescribed, the most common ones were (in order of the number of prescriptions): Natrum muriaticum, Lycopodium, Calcarea carbonicum, Pulsatilla, Phosphous, Silicea, and Thuja.
Results
Various primary and secondary measures showed significant improvement after 6, 9, and 12 months of homeopathic treatment.
Sperm density improved by a median of 26.4 after 3 months, by 12.6% after 6 months, and 37.1 after 12 months (P=0.011).
The ratio of sperm with good propulsive motility was initially pathologically low in all patients, but after 3, 6, and 9 months of therapy, it improved by 20% (P=0.0037) and after 12 months, it improved by 43% (P=0.0009).
The density of sperm with good propulsive motility increased above the baseline of 1.8 million. After 3 months, there was improvement by 27.6% (P=0.02), 6 months by 40% (P=0.003), 9 months by 55.2% (P-0.01), and 12 months by 81.5% (P=0.02).
An improvement in global sperm motility improved during the first three intervals, especially at 6 months (P=0.045), but after 12 months, the median improvement decreased and was no longer significant.
A total of 8 pregnancies occurred in 7 couples, with one having twins. Five pregnancies produced a healthy child or twins, while three ended in spontaneous abortion and two miscarriages (to the same couple). These numbers represent a baby-take-home rate of 11.1%.
There were various improvements in the men’s general health, especially those suffering from abdominal disorders (P=0.0004) after 6 months and (P=0.052) after 9 months. In general, the men observed greater improvement in various local symptoms than in their psychological state or more general symptoms.
This experience runs counter to homeopathic theory that predicts greater improvement in general health prior to local symptoms.
Ironically, 5 of 7 drop-out patients experienced significant improvement after 3 months, including a 55% increase in sperm density, 63% increase in progressive motility, and 196% increase in the density of sperm with good motility.
Positive Predictors to Therapeutic Success
The following factors were observed to be predictors of therapeutic success with homeopathic medicines: Men with longer (4 years or more) unwanted childlessness.
There were improvements in the density of sperm with good motility in men who didn’t smoke at 3 and 6 months, but these changes were not significant in men who smoked. Men who drank little or alcohol (<30 gram alcohol/day; n=20) experienced an increase in sperm density with good propulsive motility of 72.2% (P=0.04) after 3 months and 51.8% (P=0.04) after 6 months, but the increase for men who drank more alcohol was only 14.2% after 6 months and was not significant.
The density of sperm with good propulsive motility improved by 50% after 3 months in the high-caffeine group (n=20, P=0.04), and was only increased by 13.4% in the low-caffeine group. However, after 6 months the low-caffeine group of men’s sperm density improved by 70.2% (P=0.04), while the high- caffeine group increased 37.3% (P=0.04).
The men with few amalgam fillings (n=18) experienced greater improvement in sperm density with good propulsive motility at 72.2% after 3 months (P=0.022) and 97% after 6 months (P=0.017), as compared to the amalgam-rich group (n=27) with 11.4 and 19%. Men who were exposed to noxious factors in the workplace (n=11) experienced a less rapid increase and a smaller overall improvement. Men who self-described themselves as more stressed (n=21) experienced greater improvement in density of sperm with good propulsive motility than those men in the “no-stress” group (n=24).
The positive results from this study suggest the need to conduct a more rigorous placebo-controlled trial.
Although this eBook focuses primarily on clinical research, the below described laboratory study provides some findings of interest to those people concerned about infertility issues. Mitochondrial activity is an important viability parameter of spermatozoa and is linked to sperm motility. Monensin (a broad spectrum antibiotic used in cattle feed) is commonly used as an inhibitor for sperm mitochondrial activity in the laboratory. This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of some homeopathic dilutions of monensin on sperm mitochondrial activity. Fresh ejaculates from 6 mature bulls were used in the study. Samples of the semen were tested using a flow cytometer for mitochondrial activity and sperm viability using Rhodamine 123 and SYBR-14, respectively. The 9x dilution of monensin resulted in very highly significant (P<0.001) stimulation of mitochondrial activity. Monensin 5x, 7x, 8x and 13x caused highly significant (P<0.01) stimulation of the sperm mitochondrial activity. Other homeopathic dilutions of monensin (6x, 10x, 11x, 12x and 14x) also had a significant (P<0.05) stimulatory effect. The use of monensin did not have any negative effect on sperm viability. We conclude that some homeopathic dilutions of monensin increase mitochondrial activity of bovine spermatozoa without negative effect on sperm viability, the 9x dilution was the most effective. Further in vivo studies are required to estimate the effect of homeopathic dilutions of monensin on semen quality.
REFERENCE:
Aziz D, Enbergs H., Stimulation of bovine sperm mitochondrial activity by homeopathic dilutions of monensin. Homeopathy. 2005 Oct;94(4):229-32.
Gerhard, I, Wallis, E, Individualized homeopathic therapy for male infertility, Homeopathy (2002)91,133-144.
Individualized homeopathic therapy for male infertility.
Gerhar I,Wallis E.
Outpatient Clinic for Complementary Medicine, Department for Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproduction, Gynecological Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Germany.
frauenklinik_ambulanz_nhv@med.uni-heidelberg.de
This prospective observational pilot study investigated the effect of individualized homeopathy on male infertility based on sperm count, hormone values and general health. Forty-five subfertile men were treated with single homeopathic remedies for an average of 10.3 months. The drugs were prescribed on the basis of the overall symptomatic situation. The variables 'sperm density', 'percentage of sperm with good progressive motility' and 'density of sperm with good propulsive motility' improved significantly, especially in cases of oligoasthenozoospermia. The general health of patients improved significantly. The following factors emerged as positive predictors of therapy success: alcohol consumption below 30 g/day, non-smoking, the presence of less than five dental amalgam fillings, no exposure to noxious substances at the workplace and no previous inflammatory genital diseases. The factors stress, age above 36, high coffee consumption and long duration of unwanted childlessness did not have a negative impact on therapy outcome in this study. The rate of improvement in sperm count through homeopathic therapy is comparable to the improvement achieved by conventional therapy, so that individualized-homeopathic treatment may be considered a useful alternative to conventional treatment of subfertile men. For further investigation, a randomised, therapy-controlled clinical study with parallel group design would be useful (homeopathic therapy vs conventional andrological therapy).
PMID: 12322866 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Infertility
BOTTOMLINE: Fertility in men and women is a complex process, and the treatment of infertility requires treatment by a professional homeopath. Although no studies have yet been conducted on women, one pilot study of subfertile men found good results from professional homeopathic treatment.
A prospective unblinded pilot study was conducted on 45 subfertile men who were treated with individually chosen homeopathic medicines based on the psychophysical symptom syndrome each experienced. The main outcome measures were improved sperm density, improved percentage of sperm with good propulsive motility, density of sperm with good motility. Other outcome measures included sperm vitality, morphology, and the ratio of sperm with global motility.
This study was conducted at the Outpatient Clinic for Complementary Medicine at the University Women’s Hospital of Heidelberg (Germany). The men admitted into the study has to have two or more years of unwanted childlessness, two pathological sperm counts not influenced by therapy, at least 3 months without andrological therapy, and patient consent.
The men average age was 35.5 years (range 28-47). The couples suffered from unwanted childlessness for an average of 4.5 years (range: 2-11 years).
Thirty of the men reported some type of genital disease: 20 suffered from varicocele, 5 from undescended testes, 15 from urogenital inflammation, 1 from coital impotence, and 5 sustain a previous genital trauma. [The individualized homeopathic treatment included a detailed interview in which the patient was queried about his unique symptoms. The homeopath ranked in a hierarchy those symptoms that were in the emotional and mental realm and those that affected his entire body, as distinct from those that were local symptoms. The symptoms were ordered by intensity and prominence.] All men were prescribed a single homeopathic medicine in the LM 18 potency, and each man shook the bottle before taking three drops once daily. The patients were asked to keep a diary of any symptoms, and they were asked to avoid any other therapy, except in emergencies. The men were asked to abstain from caffeine, but if this was not possible, they were asked to avoid taking it within 1-2 hours of taking the homeopathic medicine. The patients attended the clinic every six weeks for review. If the medicine was still indicated, the drug was re-prescribed at a one-step higher potency. If not, a different homeopathic medicine was prescribed.
Homeopathic treatment lasted on average 10.3 months (range: 6-21.5). Seven patients dropped out after 2-5 months. A total of 26 homeopathic medicines were prescribed, the most common ones were (in order of the number of prescriptions): Natrum muriaticum, Lycopodium, Calcarea carbonicum, Pulsatilla, Phosphous, Silicea, and Thuja.
Results
Various primary and secondary measures showed significant improvement after 6, 9, and 12 months of homeopathic treatment.
Sperm density improved by a median of 26.4 after 3 months, by 12.6% after 6 months, and 37.1 after 12 months (P=0.011).
The ratio of sperm with good propulsive motility was initially pathologically low in all patients, but after 3, 6, and 9 months of therapy, it improved by 20% (P=0.0037) and after 12 months, it improved by 43% (P=0.0009).
The density of sperm with good propulsive motility increased above the baseline of 1.8 million. After 3 months, there was improvement by 27.6% (P=0.02), 6 months by 40% (P=0.003), 9 months by 55.2% (P-0.01), and 12 months by 81.5% (P=0.02).
An improvement in global sperm motility improved during the first three intervals, especially at 6 months (P=0.045), but after 12 months, the median improvement decreased and was no longer significant.
A total of 8 pregnancies occurred in 7 couples, with one having twins. Five pregnancies produced a healthy child or twins, while three ended in spontaneous abortion and two miscarriages (to the same couple). These numbers represent a baby-take-home rate of 11.1%.
There were various improvements in the men’s general health, especially those suffering from abdominal disorders (P=0.0004) after 6 months and (P=0.052) after 9 months. In general, the men observed greater improvement in various local symptoms than in their psychological state or more general symptoms.
This experience runs counter to homeopathic theory that predicts greater improvement in general health prior to local symptoms.
Ironically, 5 of 7 drop-out patients experienced significant improvement after 3 months, including a 55% increase in sperm density, 63% increase in progressive motility, and 196% increase in the density of sperm with good motility.
Positive Predictors to Therapeutic Success
The following factors were observed to be predictors of therapeutic success with homeopathic medicines: Men with longer (4 years or more) unwanted childlessness.
There were improvements in the density of sperm with good motility in men who didn’t smoke at 3 and 6 months, but these changes were not significant in men who smoked. Men who drank little or alcohol (<30 gram alcohol/day; n=20) experienced an increase in sperm density with good propulsive motility of 72.2% (P=0.04) after 3 months and 51.8% (P=0.04) after 6 months, but the increase for men who drank more alcohol was only 14.2% after 6 months and was not significant.
The density of sperm with good propulsive motility improved by 50% after 3 months in the high-caffeine group (n=20, P=0.04), and was only increased by 13.4% in the low-caffeine group. However, after 6 months the low-caffeine group of men’s sperm density improved by 70.2% (P=0.04), while the high- caffeine group increased 37.3% (P=0.04).
The men with few amalgam fillings (n=18) experienced greater improvement in sperm density with good propulsive motility at 72.2% after 3 months (P=0.022) and 97% after 6 months (P=0.017), as compared to the amalgam-rich group (n=27) with 11.4 and 19%. Men who were exposed to noxious factors in the workplace (n=11) experienced a less rapid increase and a smaller overall improvement. Men who self-described themselves as more stressed (n=21) experienced greater improvement in density of sperm with good propulsive motility than those men in the “no-stress” group (n=24).
The positive results from this study suggest the need to conduct a more rigorous placebo-controlled trial.
Although this eBook focuses primarily on clinical research, the below described laboratory study provides some findings of interest to those people concerned about infertility issues. Mitochondrial activity is an important viability parameter of spermatozoa and is linked to sperm motility. Monensin (a broad spectrum antibiotic used in cattle feed) is commonly used as an inhibitor for sperm mitochondrial activity in the laboratory. This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of some homeopathic dilutions of monensin on sperm mitochondrial activity. Fresh ejaculates from 6 mature bulls were used in the study. Samples of the semen were tested using a flow cytometer for mitochondrial activity and sperm viability using Rhodamine 123 and SYBR-14, respectively. The 9x dilution of monensin resulted in very highly significant (P<0.001) stimulation of mitochondrial activity. Monensin 5x, 7x, 8x and 13x caused highly significant (P<0.01) stimulation of the sperm mitochondrial activity. Other homeopathic dilutions of monensin (6x, 10x, 11x, 12x and 14x) also had a significant (P<0.05) stimulatory effect. The use of monensin did not have any negative effect on sperm viability. We conclude that some homeopathic dilutions of monensin increase mitochondrial activity of bovine spermatozoa without negative effect on sperm viability, the 9x dilution was the most effective. Further in vivo studies are required to estimate the effect of homeopathic dilutions of monensin on semen quality.
REFERENCE:
Aziz D, Enbergs H., Stimulation of bovine sperm mitochondrial activity by homeopathic dilutions of monensin. Homeopathy. 2005 Oct;94(4):229-32.
Gerhard, I, Wallis, E, Individualized homeopathic therapy for male infertility, Homeopathy (2002)91,133-144.
Thursday, 19 April 2012
Homeopathy for Toothache
Homeopathic toothache remedies are engineered to address specific symptoms. Therefore, there's no one remedy that you should take for all toothaches or other dental problems.
Please take note that toothache indicates a problem, so be sure to consult a dentist as soon as possible. Letting a toothache persist could mean more pain later, more expensive dental procedures, and it can lead to an abscess.
Click here for information about a Tooth abscess
watch this video Dental abscess animation
Also consult:
Periodontal Disease and your Heart
Periodontal Disease and Diabetes
Periodontitis
Gingival and periodontal pockets
Here are the most indicated Homeopathic remedies for a number of different dental problems:
Aconitum napellus [Aconite] 30c/200c
Aggravated by cold wind, but better with cold water.
For sudden toothaches, anxiety, after exposure to cold or wind.
If you're suffering severe, unbearable pain, anxiety and sudden restlessness, and moving makes your toothache worse, try Aconitum Napellus. This relieves the kind of sharp, tearing pain caused by serious cases of pulpitis and nerve inflammation. 7C potency, every fifteen to twenty minutes.
Antimonium crudum [Ant.crud] 30c/200c
Gum margins detached from teeth, bleed easily. Teeth feel hollow and aching.
Arnica [Arn] 30c/200c
Pain after dental fillings or trauma. Continue to take Arnica 30c/200c as a pain killer as and when needed.
This is a very useful remedy for bleeding after extraction of teeth, and for pain and swelling from wearing false teeth, or pains produced by filing or filling or excavating teeth. The sensation is one of soreness.
Belladonna [Bell] 15C/30c/200c (never lower than 15c in any acute condition)
Every half hour should be taken, until the symptoms are reduced or subside
Stabbing or throbbing pain in the gums; often similar to migraine; with heat and redness, Belladonna
Has toothache from inflammation of dental pulp. The pains are burning and throbbing, worse at night, worse on contact, as in chewing and in the open air. There is a red hot face and great nervous excitability.
When the toothache is worse from moving your head or jaw, chewing, and touch, and is accompanied by a throbbing sort of pain. Belladonna can also be used to treat sudden onset gum and tooth abscesses when they're accompanied by redness, swelling, and throbbing that gets worse when touched.
Calcarea fluorica [Calc.fl] 6x/30c/200c
This remedy produces a roughness of the teeth a decay of the enamel. Dr. R. S. Copeland claims to have produced this condition of the decay of the enamel in a patient for whom he prescribed the remedy for catarrh. It is useful in flaking off of the enamel and deficiency of same.
Calcarea phosphorica [Calc ph] 6x/30c/200c
With this remedy there is slow development, and rapid decay of the teeth. It suits dental troubles in flabby, emaciated children who open posterior fontanelles, and are slow in learning to walk.
CHAMOMILLA [Cham] 6c/30c/200c
For for maddening toothache with irritability, teething pains, babies, children, adults (wisdom teeth), Chamomilla 30c/200c
A severe toothache, worse at night and in a warm room. Irritability is marked, and may be the precipitating factor in triggering the pain.
This is an excellent remedy in unbearable toothache affecting a whole row of teeth occurring in paroxysms, with pains radiating to the ears. The special features are the intolerance of pain, aggravation, from warmth. It is worse during and after eating warm food, and especially from drinking coffee.
COFFEA [Coff] 30c/200c
Relief with cold water or ice in the mouth is characteristic.
This remedy will often remove the most severe pains of toothache which almost drive the patient frantic. It is a stinging, jerking, intermittent pain, worse while chewing, worse from warm drink, and entirely relieved for a time by holding cold water in the mouth, returning when the water becomes warm. It suits especially hypersensitive, nervous persons. 9C potency should be taken every half hour if you have the opposite kind of toothache - one relieved by cold and aggravated by heat.
Hepar Sulph [Hep sul] 30c /200c
For severe pain of abscess with chills.
Hypericum [Hyper] 30c /200c
Sudden shooting nerve pain, extreme sensitivity to heat and cold.
Kreosote [Kreos] 30c/200c
Rapid decay of teeth, with spongy and bleeding gums; offensive odor.
This remedy has premature decay of milk teeth; they become yellow, and dark and then decay (As from too muchanti-biotics). It also has aching pains in diseased teeth. Terebinthina is here complementary especially it the mouth be sore.
Magnesia carbonica is especially useful in toothache or pregnancy, and Dr. Leavitt mentions Sepia as almost specific in this condition.
Magnesium phos [Mag.phos] 6x/9C/30c/200
Until symptoms subside.
This is the homoeopathic Aspirin.
Shooting pains, better for pressure and warmth, Mag phos 30c/ 6x
Mercurius [Merc] 30c/200c
Stabbing pains radiating to the ears, worse at night. Profuse salivation.
Fever/sore throat after dental work on amalgam fillings.
Taken all in all, Mercurius is probably more often indicated in toothache than any other remedy. Its special indications are a pulsating toothache, due to inflamed dentine or to periostitis of the sockets; it is worse at night and in damp weather. The teeth feel elongated and sore, and this soreness affects the whole of the jaw and face, and is worse from warmth, somewhat relieved by gentle rubbing of the face. It is the chief remedy in painful ulcerations at the roots of the teeth and for pain in the hollow teeth, the gums are swollen, ulcerated and retracted from the teeth, and there is usually an offensive odor from the mouth.
Nux moschata [Nux mos]
Severe throbbing pain that extends to neighboring teeth or to the ear. Usually the pains are aggravated by cold and relieved by warmth.
PLANTAGO major [Plant] 30c/200c
Used both locally and on the tongue. Teeth are sensitive to touch and feel too long.
Hale says that of all remedies in toothache none can compare with Plantago, and Hughes supports this statement. The teeth feel elongated and sore and sensitive to touch, with swollen cheeks. The pains are periodic, easily excited, even affecting sound teeth; they are worse lying on the affected side, and sometimes these stabbing and boring pains become very severe.
If your tooth aches severely, the pain is aggravated by cold and pressure, but better when you eat, and the other teeth are sensitive, 30C potency Plantago may be the answer. This remedy is particularly recommended if your mouth feels full of saliva.
Silicea [Sil] 6x/30c/200c
This remedy suits especially abscesses about the roots of the teeth and dental fistulae; the pains are worse from eating warm food or or when cold air gets into the mouth; they are worse at night and the teeth feel loose.
Spigelia [Spig] 30c/200c
Pain aggravated by either hot or cold food, or cold wind. Often worse at night. Commonly associated with a root abscess or a gingivitis.
This is an excellent remedy in tearing, beating pains in carious teeth extending to the malar bone of the affected side. Painful jerks in decayed teeth worse from cold or cold water. The pains set in after eating, smoking or retiring to test, driving the patient from bed their severity. The provings of Spigelia show that it has a remarkable influence over the nerves of th face, jaws and teeth.
Staphisagria [Staph] 30c/200c
Feeling upset or violated after dental work.
Severe pain. The teeth are especially sensitive so that the least touch, or cold air triggers a toothache, especially at night. Often worse after food, pains typically drawing and tearing in character. The cheek is often swollen and red.
With this remedy the gums are unhealthy and retracted, and there is a tendency to decay of the teeth. They turn black and crumble as soon as they appear, a condition found in some children. It is a splendid remedy for gnawing in the roots of decayed teeth, affecting a whole row, and is especially adapted to old women who have a mouthful of painful stumps.
Other options when a dentist is not available
Floss
In the event you really feel that there exists some foods which is swamped in between your teeth then gently attempt flossing it.
Cloves and Clove Oil
Cloves and clove oil have been common toothache remedies for hundred of years. To relieve your tooth pain, try resting a clove near the sore region or substitute with a two drops of clove oil around the tooth.
This oil includes eugenol, which has medicinal qualities and functions as an organic pain killer.
Salt Water
Take a big spoonful of sea salt and blend it thoroughly with a cup of hot mineral water. Then, take the mixture and use it like a mouthwash. Swish it around within your mouth for as long as you are able to endure the taste or till your jaw muscles get sore. Then, spit out and again again a few times. You won’t like it but this remedy should feel your toothache pain subside.
Alcohol
However, if you have some vodka, brandy, whiskey, or other alcoholic beverages sitting around the house, then you might have the ability to temporarily relieve the discomfort by swishing it around in your mouth and then spitting it out. Do it again as necessary till the pain becomes endurable. You can also substitute this toothache remedies with a good, alcohol-containing mouth rinse if necessary.
Tobacco oil / Pipe oil
Apply a drop or two of tobacco oil, which is obtainable from the bottom end of a pipe, to the tooth.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
204 Scientific Research Studies on Homeopathy
Triple Blind studies, Double-Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis, Evidence-base
December 4, 2011 · homeopathy
Authors : Dr. Nancy Malik BHMS
204 human studies published in 86 peer-reviewed international medical journals out of which 96+ are FULL TEXT out of which 94 are PDF which can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/gFJIbg
Key Words: Science, Homeopathic, Pharmacy, Genetics , Homeopath,
The short URL for this knol is http://bit.ly/rrpWCm
Research Papers upto year 2010 are included in this database
Download 95 FULL TEXT PDF research papers on homeopathy at Google Documents
Link to the Spanish version of this article
Link to the Hindi version of this article
CONTENTS
A. Basic Fundamental Research (Physics, Chemistry and Biology)
B. High Dilution Research
C. Clinical Research
1. Triple-Blind Studies
2. Double-blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial (DBRPCT)
3. Double-Blind Studies
4. Cohort/Observational/Pilot Studies
5. Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis
6. Online Database
D.
7. Homeopathy Research Resource
8. More Research studies
9. Physics behind homeopathy
E.
10. Homeopathy as a Genetic Medicine
11. Evidence for specific disease conditions 12. Homeopathy superior to allopathy
13. Homeopathy cost-effective than allopathy
14. Homeopathy equals allopathy
15. Homeopathy superior to placebo
16. Homeopathy improving quality of life
F.
17. Evidence-based Medicine
18. To distinguish one homeopathy medicine from another
19. To distinguish homeopathy medicine from water
20. Potency Selection
21. Placebo Effect
22. Anecdotal Evidence
G.
23. Animal Studies
24. Plant Studies
Introduction
Evidence of homeopathy is undeniably positive and consistent. It’s a human evidence of experience, gathered from a real-world observation in a real-world setting (not in an ideal artificial laboratory) giving real-world solutions.
Read more HERE
December 4, 2011 · homeopathy
Authors : Dr. Nancy Malik BHMS
Abstract
Medicines for specific disease conditions, High dilutions, Animal Studies, Plant Studies204 human studies published in 86 peer-reviewed international medical journals out of which 96+ are FULL TEXT out of which 94 are PDF which can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/gFJIbg
Key Words: Science, Homeopathic, Pharmacy, Genetics , Homeopath,
The short URL for this knol is http://bit.ly/rrpWCm
Research Papers upto year 2010 are included in this database
Download 95 FULL TEXT PDF research papers on homeopathy at Google Documents
Link to the Spanish version of this article
Link to the Hindi version of this article
CONTENTS
A. Basic Fundamental Research (Physics, Chemistry and Biology)
B. High Dilution Research
C. Clinical Research
1. Triple-Blind Studies
2. Double-blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial (DBRPCT)
3. Double-Blind Studies
4. Cohort/Observational/Pilot Studies
5. Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis
6. Online Database
D.
7. Homeopathy Research Resource
8. More Research studies
9. Physics behind homeopathy
E.
10. Homeopathy as a Genetic Medicine
11. Evidence for specific disease conditions 12. Homeopathy superior to allopathy
13. Homeopathy cost-effective than allopathy
14. Homeopathy equals allopathy
15. Homeopathy superior to placebo
16. Homeopathy improving quality of life
F.
17. Evidence-based Medicine
18. To distinguish one homeopathy medicine from another
19. To distinguish homeopathy medicine from water
20. Potency Selection
21. Placebo Effect
22. Anecdotal Evidence
G.
23. Animal Studies
24. Plant Studies
Introduction
Evidence of homeopathy is undeniably positive and consistent. It’s a human evidence of experience, gathered from a real-world observation in a real-world setting (not in an ideal artificial laboratory) giving real-world solutions.
Read more HERE
Homeopathy during Epidemics
Did You Know?
Here are more fun anecdotes and statistics that describe the use of homeopathy for epidemics.
1. An 1813 epidemic of typhus fever (spread by lice) followed Napoleon’s army marching through Germany to attack Russia. When the epidemic came through Leipzig as the army retreated from the east, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, treated 180 cases of typhus, only losing two (1.11% of the cases). This was at a time when conventional treatments were having a mortality rate of over 30%.
2. Within three years of the diphtheria outbreak in Broome County, New York, from 1862 to 1864, there was a report of an 83.6% mortality rate amongst the conventional medical doctors and a 16.4% mortality rate among the homeopaths.
3. The May 1921 edition of the Journal of the American Institute for Homeopathy had an article about the use of homeopathy during the 1918 flu epidemic. Dr. T. A. McCann, from Dayton, Ohio, reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated with conventional medicine had a mortality rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%.
Just watch the contemporary film, 'Contagion' and see!
The original article can be found here
Your Wellness Team at
~Access Natural Healing Centre~
604-568-4663
info@accessnaturalhealing.com
www.accessnaturalhealing.com
Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/homeopath#!/AccessNaturalHealing
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/accesshealing
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top
“The information contained in this message is for educational purposes and constitutes a response to a private request for information only and does not constitute a solicitation for services and makes no claim or promise that any product or service that may cure any condition or ailment,”
Here are more fun anecdotes and statistics that describe the use of homeopathy for epidemics.
1. An 1813 epidemic of typhus fever (spread by lice) followed Napoleon’s army marching through Germany to attack Russia. When the epidemic came through Leipzig as the army retreated from the east, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, treated 180 cases of typhus, only losing two (1.11% of the cases). This was at a time when conventional treatments were having a mortality rate of over 30%.
2. Within three years of the diphtheria outbreak in Broome County, New York, from 1862 to 1864, there was a report of an 83.6% mortality rate amongst the conventional medical doctors and a 16.4% mortality rate among the homeopaths.
3. The May 1921 edition of the Journal of the American Institute for Homeopathy had an article about the use of homeopathy during the 1918 flu epidemic. Dr. T. A. McCann, from Dayton, Ohio, reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated with conventional medicine had a mortality rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%.
Just watch the contemporary film, 'Contagion' and see!
The original article can be found here
Your Wellness Team at
~Access Natural Healing Centre~
604-568-4663
info@accessnaturalhealing.com
www.accessnaturalhealing.com
Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/homeopath#!/AccessNaturalHealing
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/accesshealing
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top
“The information contained in this message is for educational purposes and constitutes a response to a private request for information only and does not constitute a solicitation for services and makes no claim or promise that any product or service that may cure any condition or ailment,”
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Edzard Ernst - Critic Of Homeopathy Exposed
News Source: Newsletter of the German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians
News Date: February 15, 2012
Author: Ursula Kraus-Harper
In April 2010 the Deutscher Zentralverein homoeopathischer Aerzte (German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians) published an interview with Professor Edzard Ernst in its newsletter.[1]
In this interview Ernst claims that he “acquired the prerequisites” to be able to add ‘homeopathy’ to his medical title “but never applied for the title”. In fact, a crucial ‘prerequisite’ in Germany, where homeopathy is regulated, is to have passed an exam at the relevant regional branch of the German Landesaerztekammer (medical council), and Ernst never did this. As the interviewer points out:
“So is it correct that you did not acquire the additional medical title ‘Homeopathy’ but took further medical education courses in homeopathy? If yes, which ones?
Ernst: "I never completed any courses.”
In short, it appears that the leading ‘authority’ on homeopathy, and perhaps its most referenced critic, has no qualifications in homeopathy.[2]
This will not come as a surprise to anyone who has read William Alderson’s Halloween Science, the detailed critique of Ernst and Simon Singh’s Trick or Treatment?[3] In his discussion of the chapter on homeopathy Alderson concludes that:
“it destroys entirely Ernst and Singh’s credibility as a reliable source of information about at least one of the therapies they discuss in detail, and this renders highly questionable their reliability as a source of information about all the other therapies.”[4]
Alderson also claims that Trick or Treatment? shows Ernst to be unreliable as a researcher into homeopathy. He outlines 11 mistakes which can arise from ignorance of the principles of homeopathy, and which can seriously affect the reliability of randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of homeopathy.[5] None of these are mentioned by Ernst and Singh.
“What is unforgivable in two ‘trained scientists’ (p. 3) is they have not considered the implications of these issues in respect of the validity of trials. They do not even refer to any of them when they present two trials to illustrate that individualisation does not guarantee the success of homeopathy.”[6]
Ernst’s failure to take these issues seriously is confirmed by the interview, when he is asked:
“Do you see fundamental problems with double-blind studies for individualised methods?"
Ernst: "No.”
This failure is also confirmed by looking at the protocol of a trial of Arnica he specifically mentions in his career details.[7] In this trial approximately one third of the patients were given Arnica 30c and another third Arnica 6c, and “Tablets were to be taken three times daily for seven days preoperatively and fourteen days postoperatively.”[8] Not only did this mean that treatment was not individualised, but patients were taking medicine for a week before the operation when there was nothing to treat. Such a procedure will have unpredictable effects, and is anathema to homeopathic principles and prescribing practice.
We believe that it is time to recognise that opposition to homeopathy is largely based on the opinions of individuals who are unqualified or unwilling to judge the evidence fairly. Against them is the experience of millions who have actually benefited from homeopathy. A recently published example of this success is the trial in Cuba where 2.3 million people were immunised homeopathically against endemic Leptospirosis. In two weeks, the infection rate plummeted by 80% in the trial areas and the mortality rate dropped to zero, with this success continuing though the following year.[9,10]
One person may be right and 2.3 million may be wrong, but this interview confirms the evidence which H:MC21 has already presented, namely that one individual, Edzard Ernst, is not a credible source of information about the effectiveness of homeopathy.
References
1. ‘Interview mit Professor Edzard Ernst, Exeter’, Homoeopathische Nachrichten, April 2010, pp. 1-3, available at: <http://www.dzvhae.com/portal/pics/abschnitte/300410102802_hn168april10.pdf?PHPSESSID=273eb20b3c19d743c6c106bbd56fd1dc>. The translation can be downloaded below.
2. There are no qualifications mentioned in his career details on the Peninsula Medical School website at <http://www.pms.ac.uk/compmed/ErnstCV-extended.pdf>, accessed 17 March 2009.
3. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (London: Bantam Press, 2008).
4. William Alderson, Halloween Science (Stoke Ferry: Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century, 2009), p.86
5. Halloween Science, pp. 57-62.
6. Halloween Science, p. 61.
7. <http://www.pms.ac.uk/compmed/ErnstCV-extended.pdf>, accessed 17 March 2009.
8. C. Stevinson BSc MSc, V.S. Devaraj FRCS FRCS(Plast), A. Fountain-Barber MCSP SRP, S. Hawkins MCSP SRP, E. Ernst MD PhD, ‘Homeopathic arnica for prevention of pain and bruising: randomized placebo-controlled trial in hand surgery’, J Roy Soc Med, 96 (2003), 60-65, p. 61.
9. G. Bracho, E. Varela , R. Fernández, B. Ordaz, N. Marzoa, J Menéndez, L. García, E. Gilling, R. Leyva, R. Rufín, R. de la Torre, R.L. Solis, N. Batista, R. Borrero, C. Campa, ‘Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control’, Homeopathy, 99 (2010),156-66, at <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839>.
10. ‘Homeopathy associated with dramatic reduction in Leptospirosis infection in Cuban population’ Faculty of Homeopathy press release, 3 August 2010, at <http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/media/press_releases/leptospirosis_infection_in_Cuban_population.html>
Originally posted HERE
News Date: February 15, 2012
Author: Ursula Kraus-Harper
In April 2010 the Deutscher Zentralverein homoeopathischer Aerzte (German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians) published an interview with Professor Edzard Ernst in its newsletter.[1]
In this interview Ernst claims that he “acquired the prerequisites” to be able to add ‘homeopathy’ to his medical title “but never applied for the title”. In fact, a crucial ‘prerequisite’ in Germany, where homeopathy is regulated, is to have passed an exam at the relevant regional branch of the German Landesaerztekammer (medical council), and Ernst never did this. As the interviewer points out:
“So is it correct that you did not acquire the additional medical title ‘Homeopathy’ but took further medical education courses in homeopathy? If yes, which ones?
Ernst: "I never completed any courses.”
In short, it appears that the leading ‘authority’ on homeopathy, and perhaps its most referenced critic, has no qualifications in homeopathy.[2]
This will not come as a surprise to anyone who has read William Alderson’s Halloween Science, the detailed critique of Ernst and Simon Singh’s Trick or Treatment?[3] In his discussion of the chapter on homeopathy Alderson concludes that:
“it destroys entirely Ernst and Singh’s credibility as a reliable source of information about at least one of the therapies they discuss in detail, and this renders highly questionable their reliability as a source of information about all the other therapies.”[4]
Alderson also claims that Trick or Treatment? shows Ernst to be unreliable as a researcher into homeopathy. He outlines 11 mistakes which can arise from ignorance of the principles of homeopathy, and which can seriously affect the reliability of randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of homeopathy.[5] None of these are mentioned by Ernst and Singh.
“What is unforgivable in two ‘trained scientists’ (p. 3) is they have not considered the implications of these issues in respect of the validity of trials. They do not even refer to any of them when they present two trials to illustrate that individualisation does not guarantee the success of homeopathy.”[6]
Ernst’s failure to take these issues seriously is confirmed by the interview, when he is asked:
“Do you see fundamental problems with double-blind studies for individualised methods?"
Ernst: "No.”
This failure is also confirmed by looking at the protocol of a trial of Arnica he specifically mentions in his career details.[7] In this trial approximately one third of the patients were given Arnica 30c and another third Arnica 6c, and “Tablets were to be taken three times daily for seven days preoperatively and fourteen days postoperatively.”[8] Not only did this mean that treatment was not individualised, but patients were taking medicine for a week before the operation when there was nothing to treat. Such a procedure will have unpredictable effects, and is anathema to homeopathic principles and prescribing practice.
We believe that it is time to recognise that opposition to homeopathy is largely based on the opinions of individuals who are unqualified or unwilling to judge the evidence fairly. Against them is the experience of millions who have actually benefited from homeopathy. A recently published example of this success is the trial in Cuba where 2.3 million people were immunised homeopathically against endemic Leptospirosis. In two weeks, the infection rate plummeted by 80% in the trial areas and the mortality rate dropped to zero, with this success continuing though the following year.[9,10]
One person may be right and 2.3 million may be wrong, but this interview confirms the evidence which H:MC21 has already presented, namely that one individual, Edzard Ernst, is not a credible source of information about the effectiveness of homeopathy.
References
1. ‘Interview mit Professor Edzard Ernst, Exeter’, Homoeopathische Nachrichten, April 2010, pp. 1-3, available at: <http://www.dzvhae.com/portal/pics/abschnitte/300410102802_hn168april10.pdf?PHPSESSID=273eb20b3c19d743c6c106bbd56fd1dc>. The translation can be downloaded below.
2. There are no qualifications mentioned in his career details on the Peninsula Medical School website at <http://www.pms.ac.uk/compmed/ErnstCV-extended.pdf>, accessed 17 March 2009.
3. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (London: Bantam Press, 2008).
4. William Alderson, Halloween Science (Stoke Ferry: Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century, 2009), p.86
5. Halloween Science, pp. 57-62.
6. Halloween Science, p. 61.
7. <http://www.pms.ac.uk/compmed/ErnstCV-extended.pdf>, accessed 17 March 2009.
8. C. Stevinson BSc MSc, V.S. Devaraj FRCS FRCS(Plast), A. Fountain-Barber MCSP SRP, S. Hawkins MCSP SRP, E. Ernst MD PhD, ‘Homeopathic arnica for prevention of pain and bruising: randomized placebo-controlled trial in hand surgery’, J Roy Soc Med, 96 (2003), 60-65, p. 61.
9. G. Bracho, E. Varela , R. Fernández, B. Ordaz, N. Marzoa, J Menéndez, L. García, E. Gilling, R. Leyva, R. Rufín, R. de la Torre, R.L. Solis, N. Batista, R. Borrero, C. Campa, ‘Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control’, Homeopathy, 99 (2010),156-66, at <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839>.
10. ‘Homeopathy associated with dramatic reduction in Leptospirosis infection in Cuban population’ Faculty of Homeopathy press release, 3 August 2010, at <http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/media/press_releases/leptospirosis_infection_in_Cuban_population.html>
Originally posted HERE
Saturday, 18 February 2012
A Homeopathic Approach to Treat Patients with Advanced Gallbladder, Periampullary, and Liver Carcinomas: A Report of 3 Cases
Aradeep Chatterjee and Jaydip Biswas and. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. February 2012, 18(2): 180-186. doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0027.
Published in Volume: 18 Issue 2: February 17, 2012
Objectives: The authors present 3 cases of various pathologically confirmed malignancies (one gallbladder, one periampullary, and one liver). These patients underwent Psorinum therapy as the primary cancer treatment. Psorinum therapy is a homeopathic approach to treat patients with cancer.
Subjects: According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor, nodes, metastasis system, all 3 patients were diagnosed at Stage IV. Their Karnofsky performance status was between 20% and 50% and their Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score status was between 3 and 4. In these cases, conventional cancer treatments could not be initiated due to the advanced stage of their disease, poor general health performance status, and their financial constraints.
Interventions and outcome: In these patients, Psorinum-6x was administered orally at a dose of 0.02 mL/kg body weight/day on an empty stomach for a complete course duration of 2 years, along with allopathic and homeopathic supportive treatment. According to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, complete tumor response occurred in 1 case and partial tumor response occurred in the other 2 cases. All 3 patients remained alive and maintained a stable quality of life for at least 2 years. The patients reported no adverse side-effects from Psorinum-6x.
Conclusions: This report indicates the clinical efficacy of Psorinum therapy in treating those 3 patients. Thorough basic research and well-designed clinical trials should be conducted for further investigation of this homeopathic cancer treatment in order to integrate it into the mainstream of oncology treatments.
To read more click HERE
Published in Volume: 18 Issue 2: February 17, 2012
ABSTRACT
AbstractObjectives: The authors present 3 cases of various pathologically confirmed malignancies (one gallbladder, one periampullary, and one liver). These patients underwent Psorinum therapy as the primary cancer treatment. Psorinum therapy is a homeopathic approach to treat patients with cancer.
Subjects: According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor, nodes, metastasis system, all 3 patients were diagnosed at Stage IV. Their Karnofsky performance status was between 20% and 50% and their Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score status was between 3 and 4. In these cases, conventional cancer treatments could not be initiated due to the advanced stage of their disease, poor general health performance status, and their financial constraints.
Interventions and outcome: In these patients, Psorinum-6x was administered orally at a dose of 0.02 mL/kg body weight/day on an empty stomach for a complete course duration of 2 years, along with allopathic and homeopathic supportive treatment. According to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, complete tumor response occurred in 1 case and partial tumor response occurred in the other 2 cases. All 3 patients remained alive and maintained a stable quality of life for at least 2 years. The patients reported no adverse side-effects from Psorinum-6x.
Conclusions: This report indicates the clinical efficacy of Psorinum therapy in treating those 3 patients. Thorough basic research and well-designed clinical trials should be conducted for further investigation of this homeopathic cancer treatment in order to integrate it into the mainstream of oncology treatments.
To read more click HERE
Thursday, 2 February 2012
STUDY - Characterization of essential oil and effects on growth of Verbena gratissima plants treated with homeopathic phosphorus.
Source
Department of Agriculture, Federal University of Lavras, P.O. Box 3037, Lavras/MG, BR 37200-000, Brazil. fulvia.maria@gmail.comAbstract
Plant models offer a method to examine the efficacy of homeopathic solutions. Homeopathic Phosphorus (P) dynamizations were evaluated on the linear growth and dry biomass of Verbena gratissima, a plant native to Brazil. The yields and chemical characterization of the essential oil are also given. Plants exhibited phenotypic plasticity after the homeopathic Phosphorus treatments. The dynamization 9CH, in particular, interfered with plant growth, height, diameter of stems and total dry mass. 9CH treatment showed the highest yield of essential oil. The essential oil composition of V. gratissima varied according to the different dynamization used. Homeopathic Phosphorus provided the greatest amount of beta-pinene, trans-pinocarveol, trans-pinocamphone and trans-pinocarvyl acetate in comparison with controls.- PMID:22164793[PubMed - in process]
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
The disinformation myths against homeopathy
When you seek a path to any new truth, you must expect to find it blocked by “expert opinion”. - Albert Guérard.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
by: Dana Ullman
See all articles by this author
(NaturalNews) Homeopathic medicine is at present one of the leading alternative therapies practiced by physicians in Europe (particularly France, Germany, UK, and Italy) and Asia (especially on the Indian subcontinent)(EU Commission, 1997; Prasad, 2007). Since homeopathy's development as a medical specialty in the early 1800s, it has been a leading alternative to orthodox medicine internationally, and it has posed an ongoing threat to the scientific, philosophical, and economics of conventional medical care.
The homeopathic approach to healing maintains a deep respect for symptoms of illness as important defenses of a person's immune and defense system. While conventional medicine often tends to assume that symptoms are something "wrong" with the person that need to be treated, inhibited, suppressed, or biochemically manipulated, homeopaths tend to assume that symptoms are important defenses of the organism that are most effectively resolved when treatments nurture, nourish, or mimic the symptoms in order to initiate a healing process. Ultimately, these two different approaches to healing people have led to various conflicts.
It is common, for instance, for homeopaths to question the alleged "scientific" studies that conventional drugs are "effective" as treatments because of concern that many of these treatments tend to suppress symptoms or disrupt the complex inner ecology of the body and create much more serious illness. Just as opiate drugs of the 19th century gave the guise of healing, homeopaths contend that many modern-day drugs provide blessed short-term relief but create immune dysfunction, mental illness, and other chronic disease processes in its wake. Further, the fact that most people today are prescribed multiple drugs concurrently, despite the fact that clinical research is rarely conducted showing the safety or efficacy of such practices, forces us all to question how scientific modern medicine truly is.
Homeopaths contend that increased rates of cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue, and various chronic diseases for increasingly younger people may result from conventional medicine's suppression of symptoms and disease processes. It is therefore no surprise that conventional physicians and Big Pharma have a long and dark history of working together to attack homeopathy and homeopaths.
The antagonism against homeopathy began when the highly respected Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann, MD, first developed the system in the early 1800s. Hahnemann was a translator of leading medical and pharmacology texts and the author of the leading textbook used by pharmacists of his day.
Despite Hahnemann's high stature in medicine, pharmacology, and chemistry, his strong critique of conventional medicine led to personal attacks against him by orthodox physicians as well as by the apothecaries (the drug makers of that time) who were philosophically and economically threatened by Hahnemann's work. When homeopathy arrived in America in 1825, it grew rapidly due to its widely recognized success in treating infectious disease epidemics that raged in the early and mid-1800s. Then, when the American Institute of Homeopathy became the first national medical organization in 1844, a rival organization developed that proposed to stop the growth of homeopathy (Rothstein, 1985, p. 232). That organization called itself the American Medical Association.
Paul Starr's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, acknowledged the stature that homeopathy achieved in America in the mid-and later 19th century: "Because homeopathy was simultaneously philosophical and experimental, it seemed to many people to be more rather than less scientific than orthodox medicine" (p. 97).
U.S. President William McKinley even dedicated a special monument to Dr. Hahnemann in Washington, DC, in 1900, which still stands today as the only monument in America's capital to the deeds of a physician.
However, because of the economic, philosophical, and scientific threat that the paradigm and practice of homeopathy represents, the vitriol and antagonism still exists. It is therefore enlightening to expose the disinformation that is spread about homeopathy and then understand WHO is leading this disinformation campaign (the second-part of this article will name names and discuss two individuals, one from the USA and one from the UK, who are presently leaders in the campaign against homeopathy).
The Myths Spread about Homeopathy
Like other propagandists, the homeopathy deniers seek to create disinformation by using three straightforward techniques. First, the homeopathy deniers make a simple false accusation, a lie, and repeat it constantly and consistently in an attempt to make it a new "truth". Second, this repetition is then done within the context of some legitimizing element. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, that element is a corruption of normal science, an analysis of scientific evidence that creates reasons (excuses) to exclude high quality studies that show positive results (even those studies that have been published in leading conventional medical journals), and a mis-use of the concept of skepticism. The homeopathy deniers ignore or downplay the substantial body of evidence from basic science and clinical research, from outcome studies, from cost-effectiveness studies, and from epidemiological evidence, and only quote from those studies that verify their own point of view, rather than reviewing the entire body of evidence.
The third component of the technique is to sell the lie to a vulnerable population in an attempt to have repetition from that group. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, the vulnerable groups are often young students of science, who are enamored with the language and elitism of their newly learned craft, but who lack the deep understanding and experience to realize that they are being "used" by the deniers. The homeopathy deniers also play on the fears of those older and established scientists and physicians and who are led to believe that "if homeopathy is true, then everything about modern medicine and science is false." This over-simplification of reality is commonly repeated. However, just as quantum physics does not "disprove" all of physics, but rather, it extends our capability to understand and predict events on extremely small and extremely large systems. Likewise, homeopathy does not disprove all of modern pharmacology but extends our understanding of the use of extremely small doses of medicinal agents to elicit healing responses.
History is replete with orthodox medicine and science being steadfastly resistant to different systems of medicine and paradigms of healing. Although , the average physician and scientist tends to be threatened by new ideas, a common attribute of leading physicians and scientists is a certain openness and humility due to the common and even expected evolution of knowledge.
It should be acknowledged upfront that homeopathic practitioners, patients, and users of these natural medicines are often surprised and amazed at the results they experience in the treatment of themselves, children, infants, animals, and even plants. In my observations over the past 40 years, most people are skeptical about homeopathy until they try it and see for themselves...and there are then good reasons that tens of millions of people all over the world use and rely upon these natural medicines for a wide range of acute and chronic ailments. That said, the challenge is not just trying homeopathy, but first learning something about it so that you can use it correctly and effectively.
Sadly, however, the homeopathy deniers tend to spread disinformation about homeopathy, including the following myths:
Myth #1: "There is no research that shows that homeopathic medicines work."
Such statements are a creative use of statistics, or what might be called "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Actually, most clinical research studies conducted with homeopathic medicines show a positive outcome. However, if "creative statisticians" evaluate only the smaller number of large studies, a positive result is less likely, not because homeopathy doesn't work, but because these larger studies tend to dispense only ONE homeopathic medicine for everyone in the study, without any degree of individualized treatment that is typical of the homeopathic method.[1] To claim that homeopathic medicines do not work using only these studies is as illogical as to say that antibiotics are ineffective just because they do not cure for every viral, fungal, or bacterial infection.
Myth #2: "The research studies showing that homeopathic medicines work are 'poorly conducted studies'."
Wrong! Studies showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines have been published in the Lancet, the British Medical Journal, Pediatrics, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Cochrane Reports, Chest (the publication of the British Society of Rheumatology), Cancer (the journal of the American Cancer Society), Journal of Clinical Oncology (journal of the Society of Clinical Oncology), Human Toxicology, European Journal of Pediatrics, Archives in Facial Plastic Surgery, Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, and many more.[2] ALL of these studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled. Further, because of bias against homeopathy, these studies have been scrutinized rigorously, perhaps even more rigorously than is usual.
The weak response from the homeopathy deniers is that the above studies are "cherry-picked." Well, it seems that there are a lot of "cherries" (clinical studies that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines). Also, numerous of the above leading medical journals have published meta-analyzes of clinical trials on specific diseases and have shown that homeopathic medicines have significantly more benefits than does a placebo. And further, the deniers erroneously equate the "negative" studies evidence that the whole system of homeopathy does not work, when, in fact, these studies are usually of a preliminary nature that explored the use of one or a small handful of remedies for a specific condition.
Ironically, the one review of research that the homeopathic deniers most commonly assert as strong evidence that there's no difference between homeopathic medicines and placebo (Shang et al, 2005) has been shown to be bad or certainly inadequate science (Walach, et al, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Rutten, 2009, Rutten and Stolper, 2008; Ludtke and Rutten, 2008).
Myth #3: "12C is like one drop in the entire Atlantic Ocean."
Pure fantasy (and fuzzy math)! In fact, the 12C dose requires 12 test tubes, and 1% of the solution is drawn from each of the 12 test tubes. It is also very typical for the "deniers" of homeopathy to assert with a straight face that the making of a single homeopathic medicine requires more water than exists on the planet. It seems that the skeptics are so fundamentalist in their point of view that they consciously or unconsciously mis-assume that the dilutions used in homeopathy grow proportionately with each dilution; they assume that each dilution requires 10 or 100 times more water with each dilution -- which they don't, and even the most elementary articles and books on homeopathy affirm this fact. Sadly (and strangely), most of the skeptics of homeopathy seem to read each other's misinformation on homeopathy and have a propensity to spin the reality of what homeopathy is in ways that misconstrue it.
Myth #4: "There is nothing in a homeopathic medicine. It is just water."
Ignorance and direct disinformation. First, a large number of homeopathic medicines that are sold in health food stores and pharmacies are what are called "low potencies," that is, small or very small doses of medicines, most of which are in a similar dose to which certain powerful hormones and immune cells circulate in our body. Second, using samples of six different medicines made from minerals, scientists at the Department of Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology have consistently confirmed that the starting substance is still present in the form of nanoparticles of the starting minerals even when the medicine has undergone hundreds of serial dilutions--with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, as per the homeopathic method (Chikramane, Suresh, Bellare, 2010).[3] Further, leading chemistry and physics journals have published other research to confirm that there are differences between water and "homeopathic water" (Elia and Niccoli, 1999; Elia, Napoli, Niccoli, et al, 2008; Rey, 2003)
Myth #5: "If we do not presently understand how homeopathic medicines work, then, they cannot work. It's witchcraft."
Lame on face value. How many more times in history do scientists and others need before they realize that we do not understand a lot of nature's mysteries, but our lack of understanding does not mean that the mysteries are not real. Calling homeopathy "witchcraft" clearly is someone's fear of what they do not know or understand, and a common observation from history is that whenever one goes on a witchhunt, a witch is found (one way or another). The fact that there is a small but significant body of basic sciences research that has shown physical and biological effects from homeopathic medicines tends to be ignored (Endler, Thieves, Reich, et al 2010; Witt, Bluth, Albrecht, et al, 2007). To publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals is not a common practice from witches (or warlocks).
Dr. Karol Sikora is a respected oncologist and dean of the University of Buckingham medical school (in England). Sikora has expressed serious concern about the "Stalinist repression" that certain skeptics of homeopathic and alternative medicines engage (Sikora, 2009). Sikora has harshly criticized "armchair physicians" and others who seem to have little or no experience in using these treatments with real patients.
One other critical piece of evidence to show and even prove the unscientific attitude of the homeopathy deniers is that they now wish to close off all discussion of the efficacy of homeopathic medicines (Baum and Ernst, 2009). These medical fundamentalist actually discourage keeping an open mind about homeopathy. One must question this unscientific attitude that select antagonists to homeopathy embody...and one must even wonder why they maintain such a position.
The second part of this article will provide further specific evidence of the unscientific attitude and actions from those individuals and organizations who are leading the campaign against homeopathy. A leading antagonist to homeopathy from the US and another from the UK will discussed in order to shed light on this important debate in health care. Stay tuned to find out who they are and why they maintain their point of view.
REFERENCES:>
Baum M, Ernst E. Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy? American Journal of Medicine. 122,11:November 2009. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009/03.038. http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002...)00533-6/fulltext
Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, and Govind S. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. Volume 99, Issue 4, October 2010, 231-242. http://www.homeopathy.org/files/Hom...
Elia V, and Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Elia V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Marchettini N, Tiezzi E(2008). New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Dilute Solutions. A Conductivity Study at 25?°C in Relation to Ageing. Journal of Solution Chemistry, 37:85-96. http://www.springerlink.com/content...
Endler PC, Thieves K, Reich C, Matthiessen P, Bonamin L, Scherr C, Baumgartner S. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10-23: a bibliometric study. Homeopathy, 2010; 99: 25-36. http://www.similima.com/homeopathyr...
EU Commission report evaluating implementation of Homeopathy Directives 92/73 EEC and 92/74/EEC, 1997.
Fisher P, 2006. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 March; 3(1): 145-147. Published online 2006 January 26. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nek007 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...
Ludtke 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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Prasad R. Homoeopathy booming in India. Lancet, 370:November 17, 2007,1679-80. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Rey L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74. http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...
Rothstein WG. American Physicians in the 19th Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1985.
Rutten L, 2009. http://www.dokterrutten.nl/collega/...
Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: The importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy. October 2008, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet. 366,9487, 27 August 2005:726-732. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Sikora K. Complementary medicine does help patients. Times Online, February 3rd 2009. Online document at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li...
Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic, 1982.
Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Walach H, Jonas W, Lewith G. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2081; author reply 2083-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28. From 75 publications, 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) were evaluated. Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect, and nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...
FOOTNOTES
[1] Although individualization of treatment is one of the hallmarks of the homeopathic method, there are exceptions to this common rule. For instance, there have been four large randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled studies that have shown that homeopathic Oscillococcinum is effective in treating people with influenza or influenza-like syndrome (Vickers and Smith, 2006).
[2] References to these and other studies can be found in the following article: The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: Historical and Scientific Evidence -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-...
[3] Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction by Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy.
About the author:
America's leading advocate for homeopathic medicine and author of The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (Foreword by Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Learn more about homeopathy and Dana's work at http://www.Homeopathic.com or watch Dana's videos at http://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?me...
Dana has authored 9 other books, including Homeopathy A-Z, Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants, Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling) Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD).
Dana Ulman's original as published in NaturalNews can be found HERE
Articles Related to This Article:
• Dispelling the Myths Surrounding Homeopathy
• The Case for Homeopathic Medicine: Consider the Historical and Scientific Evidence
• Interview With Dana Ullman, An Expert on Homeopathy
• Fibromyalgia: science validates homeopathy (again)
• Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science of Homeopathy
• Homeopathy for pets - safer and more effective than toxic drugs
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034097_homeopathy_myths.html#ixzz1kTpjeliU
FURTHER READING:
Homoeopathy A Panacea - FaceBook Page (70 so called incurable cases like CANCER, SLE , Keloids etc are presented over here with photographs and lab reports to prove the efficacy of Homoeopathy.)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Homoeopathy-A-Panacea/149906531700856
Bill Schneobelen: THE MEDICAL CONSPIRACY - History, Herbs, Nutrition, Energy, Cures- Excellent INFO!
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=F7307EE2D53387CEF205C8F31E6FCF53
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
by: Dana Ullman
See all articles by this author
(NaturalNews) Homeopathic medicine is at present one of the leading alternative therapies practiced by physicians in Europe (particularly France, Germany, UK, and Italy) and Asia (especially on the Indian subcontinent)(EU Commission, 1997; Prasad, 2007). Since homeopathy's development as a medical specialty in the early 1800s, it has been a leading alternative to orthodox medicine internationally, and it has posed an ongoing threat to the scientific, philosophical, and economics of conventional medical care.
The homeopathic approach to healing maintains a deep respect for symptoms of illness as important defenses of a person's immune and defense system. While conventional medicine often tends to assume that symptoms are something "wrong" with the person that need to be treated, inhibited, suppressed, or biochemically manipulated, homeopaths tend to assume that symptoms are important defenses of the organism that are most effectively resolved when treatments nurture, nourish, or mimic the symptoms in order to initiate a healing process. Ultimately, these two different approaches to healing people have led to various conflicts.
It is common, for instance, for homeopaths to question the alleged "scientific" studies that conventional drugs are "effective" as treatments because of concern that many of these treatments tend to suppress symptoms or disrupt the complex inner ecology of the body and create much more serious illness. Just as opiate drugs of the 19th century gave the guise of healing, homeopaths contend that many modern-day drugs provide blessed short-term relief but create immune dysfunction, mental illness, and other chronic disease processes in its wake. Further, the fact that most people today are prescribed multiple drugs concurrently, despite the fact that clinical research is rarely conducted showing the safety or efficacy of such practices, forces us all to question how scientific modern medicine truly is.
Homeopaths contend that increased rates of cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue, and various chronic diseases for increasingly younger people may result from conventional medicine's suppression of symptoms and disease processes. It is therefore no surprise that conventional physicians and Big Pharma have a long and dark history of working together to attack homeopathy and homeopaths.
The antagonism against homeopathy began when the highly respected Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann, MD, first developed the system in the early 1800s. Hahnemann was a translator of leading medical and pharmacology texts and the author of the leading textbook used by pharmacists of his day.
Despite Hahnemann's high stature in medicine, pharmacology, and chemistry, his strong critique of conventional medicine led to personal attacks against him by orthodox physicians as well as by the apothecaries (the drug makers of that time) who were philosophically and economically threatened by Hahnemann's work. When homeopathy arrived in America in 1825, it grew rapidly due to its widely recognized success in treating infectious disease epidemics that raged in the early and mid-1800s. Then, when the American Institute of Homeopathy became the first national medical organization in 1844, a rival organization developed that proposed to stop the growth of homeopathy (Rothstein, 1985, p. 232). That organization called itself the American Medical Association.
Paul Starr's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, acknowledged the stature that homeopathy achieved in America in the mid-and later 19th century: "Because homeopathy was simultaneously philosophical and experimental, it seemed to many people to be more rather than less scientific than orthodox medicine" (p. 97).
U.S. President William McKinley even dedicated a special monument to Dr. Hahnemann in Washington, DC, in 1900, which still stands today as the only monument in America's capital to the deeds of a physician.
However, because of the economic, philosophical, and scientific threat that the paradigm and practice of homeopathy represents, the vitriol and antagonism still exists. It is therefore enlightening to expose the disinformation that is spread about homeopathy and then understand WHO is leading this disinformation campaign (the second-part of this article will name names and discuss two individuals, one from the USA and one from the UK, who are presently leaders in the campaign against homeopathy).
The Myths Spread about Homeopathy
Like other propagandists, the homeopathy deniers seek to create disinformation by using three straightforward techniques. First, the homeopathy deniers make a simple false accusation, a lie, and repeat it constantly and consistently in an attempt to make it a new "truth". Second, this repetition is then done within the context of some legitimizing element. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, that element is a corruption of normal science, an analysis of scientific evidence that creates reasons (excuses) to exclude high quality studies that show positive results (even those studies that have been published in leading conventional medical journals), and a mis-use of the concept of skepticism. The homeopathy deniers ignore or downplay the substantial body of evidence from basic science and clinical research, from outcome studies, from cost-effectiveness studies, and from epidemiological evidence, and only quote from those studies that verify their own point of view, rather than reviewing the entire body of evidence.
The third component of the technique is to sell the lie to a vulnerable population in an attempt to have repetition from that group. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, the vulnerable groups are often young students of science, who are enamored with the language and elitism of their newly learned craft, but who lack the deep understanding and experience to realize that they are being "used" by the deniers. The homeopathy deniers also play on the fears of those older and established scientists and physicians and who are led to believe that "if homeopathy is true, then everything about modern medicine and science is false." This over-simplification of reality is commonly repeated. However, just as quantum physics does not "disprove" all of physics, but rather, it extends our capability to understand and predict events on extremely small and extremely large systems. Likewise, homeopathy does not disprove all of modern pharmacology but extends our understanding of the use of extremely small doses of medicinal agents to elicit healing responses.
History is replete with orthodox medicine and science being steadfastly resistant to different systems of medicine and paradigms of healing. Although , the average physician and scientist tends to be threatened by new ideas, a common attribute of leading physicians and scientists is a certain openness and humility due to the common and even expected evolution of knowledge.
It should be acknowledged upfront that homeopathic practitioners, patients, and users of these natural medicines are often surprised and amazed at the results they experience in the treatment of themselves, children, infants, animals, and even plants. In my observations over the past 40 years, most people are skeptical about homeopathy until they try it and see for themselves...and there are then good reasons that tens of millions of people all over the world use and rely upon these natural medicines for a wide range of acute and chronic ailments. That said, the challenge is not just trying homeopathy, but first learning something about it so that you can use it correctly and effectively.
Sadly, however, the homeopathy deniers tend to spread disinformation about homeopathy, including the following myths:
Myth #1: "There is no research that shows that homeopathic medicines work."
Such statements are a creative use of statistics, or what might be called "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Actually, most clinical research studies conducted with homeopathic medicines show a positive outcome. However, if "creative statisticians" evaluate only the smaller number of large studies, a positive result is less likely, not because homeopathy doesn't work, but because these larger studies tend to dispense only ONE homeopathic medicine for everyone in the study, without any degree of individualized treatment that is typical of the homeopathic method.[1] To claim that homeopathic medicines do not work using only these studies is as illogical as to say that antibiotics are ineffective just because they do not cure for every viral, fungal, or bacterial infection.
Myth #2: "The research studies showing that homeopathic medicines work are 'poorly conducted studies'."
Wrong! Studies showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines have been published in the Lancet, the British Medical Journal, Pediatrics, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Cochrane Reports, Chest (the publication of the British Society of Rheumatology), Cancer (the journal of the American Cancer Society), Journal of Clinical Oncology (journal of the Society of Clinical Oncology), Human Toxicology, European Journal of Pediatrics, Archives in Facial Plastic Surgery, Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, and many more.[2] ALL of these studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled. Further, because of bias against homeopathy, these studies have been scrutinized rigorously, perhaps even more rigorously than is usual.
The weak response from the homeopathy deniers is that the above studies are "cherry-picked." Well, it seems that there are a lot of "cherries" (clinical studies that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines). Also, numerous of the above leading medical journals have published meta-analyzes of clinical trials on specific diseases and have shown that homeopathic medicines have significantly more benefits than does a placebo. And further, the deniers erroneously equate the "negative" studies evidence that the whole system of homeopathy does not work, when, in fact, these studies are usually of a preliminary nature that explored the use of one or a small handful of remedies for a specific condition.
Ironically, the one review of research that the homeopathic deniers most commonly assert as strong evidence that there's no difference between homeopathic medicines and placebo (Shang et al, 2005) has been shown to be bad or certainly inadequate science (Walach, et al, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Rutten, 2009, Rutten and Stolper, 2008; Ludtke and Rutten, 2008).
Myth #3: "12C is like one drop in the entire Atlantic Ocean."
Pure fantasy (and fuzzy math)! In fact, the 12C dose requires 12 test tubes, and 1% of the solution is drawn from each of the 12 test tubes. It is also very typical for the "deniers" of homeopathy to assert with a straight face that the making of a single homeopathic medicine requires more water than exists on the planet. It seems that the skeptics are so fundamentalist in their point of view that they consciously or unconsciously mis-assume that the dilutions used in homeopathy grow proportionately with each dilution; they assume that each dilution requires 10 or 100 times more water with each dilution -- which they don't, and even the most elementary articles and books on homeopathy affirm this fact. Sadly (and strangely), most of the skeptics of homeopathy seem to read each other's misinformation on homeopathy and have a propensity to spin the reality of what homeopathy is in ways that misconstrue it.
Myth #4: "There is nothing in a homeopathic medicine. It is just water."
Ignorance and direct disinformation. First, a large number of homeopathic medicines that are sold in health food stores and pharmacies are what are called "low potencies," that is, small or very small doses of medicines, most of which are in a similar dose to which certain powerful hormones and immune cells circulate in our body. Second, using samples of six different medicines made from minerals, scientists at the Department of Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology have consistently confirmed that the starting substance is still present in the form of nanoparticles of the starting minerals even when the medicine has undergone hundreds of serial dilutions--with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, as per the homeopathic method (Chikramane, Suresh, Bellare, 2010).[3] Further, leading chemistry and physics journals have published other research to confirm that there are differences between water and "homeopathic water" (Elia and Niccoli, 1999; Elia, Napoli, Niccoli, et al, 2008; Rey, 2003)
Myth #5: "If we do not presently understand how homeopathic medicines work, then, they cannot work. It's witchcraft."
Lame on face value. How many more times in history do scientists and others need before they realize that we do not understand a lot of nature's mysteries, but our lack of understanding does not mean that the mysteries are not real. Calling homeopathy "witchcraft" clearly is someone's fear of what they do not know or understand, and a common observation from history is that whenever one goes on a witchhunt, a witch is found (one way or another). The fact that there is a small but significant body of basic sciences research that has shown physical and biological effects from homeopathic medicines tends to be ignored (Endler, Thieves, Reich, et al 2010; Witt, Bluth, Albrecht, et al, 2007). To publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals is not a common practice from witches (or warlocks).
Dr. Karol Sikora is a respected oncologist and dean of the University of Buckingham medical school (in England). Sikora has expressed serious concern about the "Stalinist repression" that certain skeptics of homeopathic and alternative medicines engage (Sikora, 2009). Sikora has harshly criticized "armchair physicians" and others who seem to have little or no experience in using these treatments with real patients.
One other critical piece of evidence to show and even prove the unscientific attitude of the homeopathy deniers is that they now wish to close off all discussion of the efficacy of homeopathic medicines (Baum and Ernst, 2009). These medical fundamentalist actually discourage keeping an open mind about homeopathy. One must question this unscientific attitude that select antagonists to homeopathy embody...and one must even wonder why they maintain such a position.
The second part of this article will provide further specific evidence of the unscientific attitude and actions from those individuals and organizations who are leading the campaign against homeopathy. A leading antagonist to homeopathy from the US and another from the UK will discussed in order to shed light on this important debate in health care. Stay tuned to find out who they are and why they maintain their point of view.
REFERENCES:>
Baum M, Ernst E. Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy? American Journal of Medicine. 122,11:November 2009. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009/03.038. http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002...)00533-6/fulltext
Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, and Govind S. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. Volume 99, Issue 4, October 2010, 231-242. http://www.homeopathy.org/files/Hom...
Elia V, and Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Elia V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Marchettini N, Tiezzi E(2008). New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Dilute Solutions. A Conductivity Study at 25?°C in Relation to Ageing. Journal of Solution Chemistry, 37:85-96. http://www.springerlink.com/content...
Endler PC, Thieves K, Reich C, Matthiessen P, Bonamin L, Scherr C, Baumgartner S. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10-23: a bibliometric study. Homeopathy, 2010; 99: 25-36. http://www.similima.com/homeopathyr...
EU Commission report evaluating implementation of Homeopathy Directives 92/73 EEC and 92/74/EEC, 1997.
Fisher P, 2006. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 March; 3(1): 145-147. Published online 2006 January 26. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nek007 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...
Ludtke 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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Prasad R. Homoeopathy booming in India. Lancet, 370:November 17, 2007,1679-80. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Rey L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74. http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...
Rothstein WG. American Physicians in the 19th Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1985.
Rutten L, 2009. http://www.dokterrutten.nl/collega/...
Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: The importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy. October 2008, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet. 366,9487, 27 August 2005:726-732. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Sikora K. Complementary medicine does help patients. Times Online, February 3rd 2009. Online document at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li...
Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic, 1982.
Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Walach H, Jonas W, Lewith G. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2081; author reply 2083-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28. From 75 publications, 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) were evaluated. Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect, and nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...
FOOTNOTES
[1] Although individualization of treatment is one of the hallmarks of the homeopathic method, there are exceptions to this common rule. For instance, there have been four large randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled studies that have shown that homeopathic Oscillococcinum is effective in treating people with influenza or influenza-like syndrome (Vickers and Smith, 2006).
[2] References to these and other studies can be found in the following article: The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: Historical and Scientific Evidence -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-...
[3] Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction by Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy.
About the author:
America's leading advocate for homeopathic medicine and author of The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (Foreword by Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Learn more about homeopathy and Dana's work at http://www.Homeopathic.com or watch Dana's videos at http://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?me...
Dana has authored 9 other books, including Homeopathy A-Z, Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants, Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling) Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD).
Dana Ulman's original as published in NaturalNews can be found HERE
Articles Related to This Article:
• Dispelling the Myths Surrounding Homeopathy
• The Case for Homeopathic Medicine: Consider the Historical and Scientific Evidence
• Interview With Dana Ullman, An Expert on Homeopathy
• Fibromyalgia: science validates homeopathy (again)
• Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science of Homeopathy
• Homeopathy for pets - safer and more effective than toxic drugs
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034097_homeopathy_myths.html#ixzz1kTpjeliU
FURTHER READING:
Homoeopathy A Panacea - FaceBook Page (70 so called incurable cases like CANCER, SLE , Keloids etc are presented over here with photographs and lab reports to prove the efficacy of Homoeopathy.)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Homoeopathy-A-Panacea/149906531700856
Bill Schneobelen: THE MEDICAL CONSPIRACY - History, Herbs, Nutrition, Energy, Cures- Excellent INFO!
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=F7307EE2D53387CEF205C8F31E6FCF53
Advances in homeopathy and immunology: a review of clinical research
Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2011 Jun 1;3:1363-89.
Bellavite P, Marzotto M, Chirumbolo S, Conforti A.
Find original article HERE
Bellavite P, Marzotto M, Chirumbolo S, Conforti A.
Source
Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. paolo.bellavite@univr.itAbstract
The present paper reviews the clinical research carried out over the past three decades to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of respiratory allergies, common upper respiratory tract infections, otorhinolaryngologic complaints, and rheumatic diseases. We include in the analysis both randomised and non-randomised trials, assigning them different weightings in the final balance of evidence, on the basis of semi-quantitative criteria. Overall, the literature concerning a total of 83 original studies suggests that homeopathy may have significant effects in some conditions, e.g. Galphimia glauca (low homeopathic dilutions / dynamizations) in allergic oculorhinitis, Anas barbariae (high homeopathic dilution / dynamization) in influenza-like syndromes, classical individualised homeopathy in otitis, in allergic complaints and in fibromyalgia, and a few low-potency homeopathic complexes in sinusitis, rhinoconjunctivitis, arthritis. The evidence for individualised homeopathic therapy in the field of upper respiratory tract infections and for homeopathic immunotherapy in respiratory allergies is more conflicting. Pragmatic equivalence trials suggest that, in primary care, homeopathic treatment is not inferior to conventional treatment. A larger number of observational studies and of clinical trials -- conducted in a methodologically correct manner without altering the treatment setting-- are needed before sure conclusions concerning the application of homeopathy for specific diseases can be drawn.- PMID:
- 21622275
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Publication Types, MeSH Terms
Publication Types
MeSH Terms
- Homeopathy/methods*
- Homeopathy/trends*
- Humans
- Hypersensitivity/drug therapy*
- Hypersensitivity/immunology
- Immunotherapy/methods
- Immunotherapy/trends*
- Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases/drug therapy*
- Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases/immunology
- Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy*
- Respiratory Tract Infections/immunology
- Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy*
- Rheumatic Diseases/immunology
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Find original article HERE
Homeopathic Potentization Based on Nanoscale Domains
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
To cite this article:
George Czerlinski and Tjalling Ypma and. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. December 2011, 17(12): 1165-1173. doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0742.
Published in Volume: 17 Issue 12: December 14, 2011
Online Ahead of Print: November 10, 2011
Full Text HTML
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to present a simple descriptive and quantitative model of how high potencies in homeopathy arise.
Design: The model begins with the mechanochemical production of hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals from water and the electronic stabilization of the resulting nanodomains of water molecules. The life of these domains is initially limited to a few days, but may extend to years when the electromagnetic characteristic of a homeopathic agent is copied onto the domains. This information is transferred between the original agent and the nanodomains, and also between previously imprinted nanodomains and new ones. The differential equations previously used to describe these processes are replaced here by exponential expressions, corresponding to simplified model mechanisms. Magnetic stabilization is also involved, since these long-lived domains apparently require the presence of the geomagnetic field. Our model incorporates this factor in the formation of the long-lived compound.
Results: Numerical simulation and graphs show that the potentization mechanism can be described quantitatively by a very simplified mechanism. The omitted factors affect only the fine structure of the kinetics. Measurements of pH changes upon absorption of different electromagnetic frequencies indicate that about 400 nanodomains polymerize to form one cooperating unit. Singlet excited states of some compounds lead to dramatic changes in their hydrogen ion dissociation constant, explaining this pH effect and suggesting that homeopathic information is imprinted as higher singlet excited states.
Conclusions: A simple description is provided of the process of potentization in homeopathic dilutions. With the exception of minor details, this simple model replicates the results previously obtained from a more complex model. While excited states are short lived in isolated molecules, they become long lived in nanodomains that form coherent cooperative aggregates controlled by the geomagnetic field. These domains either slowly emit biophotons or perform specific biochemical work at their target.
To cite this article:
George Czerlinski and Tjalling Ypma and. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. December 2011, 17(12): 1165-1173. doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0742.
Published in Volume: 17 Issue 12: December 14, 2011
Online Ahead of Print: November 10, 2011
Full Text HTML
- Full Text PDF (304 KB)
- Full Text PDF with Links (199.4 KB)
Author information
George Czerlinski, PhD,1 and Tjalling Ypma, PhD2 1Department of Biology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. 2Department of Mathematics, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. Address correspondence to: George Czerlinski, PhD Department of Biology Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225 E-mail: gczerlinski@gmail.comABSTRACT
AbstractObjectives: The objectives of this study were to present a simple descriptive and quantitative model of how high potencies in homeopathy arise.
Design: The model begins with the mechanochemical production of hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals from water and the electronic stabilization of the resulting nanodomains of water molecules. The life of these domains is initially limited to a few days, but may extend to years when the electromagnetic characteristic of a homeopathic agent is copied onto the domains. This information is transferred between the original agent and the nanodomains, and also between previously imprinted nanodomains and new ones. The differential equations previously used to describe these processes are replaced here by exponential expressions, corresponding to simplified model mechanisms. Magnetic stabilization is also involved, since these long-lived domains apparently require the presence of the geomagnetic field. Our model incorporates this factor in the formation of the long-lived compound.
Results: Numerical simulation and graphs show that the potentization mechanism can be described quantitatively by a very simplified mechanism. The omitted factors affect only the fine structure of the kinetics. Measurements of pH changes upon absorption of different electromagnetic frequencies indicate that about 400 nanodomains polymerize to form one cooperating unit. Singlet excited states of some compounds lead to dramatic changes in their hydrogen ion dissociation constant, explaining this pH effect and suggesting that homeopathic information is imprinted as higher singlet excited states.
Conclusions: A simple description is provided of the process of potentization in homeopathic dilutions. With the exception of minor details, this simple model replicates the results previously obtained from a more complex model. While excited states are short lived in isolated molecules, they become long lived in nanodomains that form coherent cooperative aggregates controlled by the geomagnetic field. These domains either slowly emit biophotons or perform specific biochemical work at their target.
Comparison of swiss basic health insurance costs of complementary and conventional medicine
Forsch Komplementmed. 2011;18(6):315-20. Epub 2011 Nov 25.
Studer HP, Busato A.
Results: Statistical procedures show similar total practice costs for CAM and COM, with the exception of homeopathy with 15.4% lower costs than COM. Furthermore, there were significant differences between CAM and COM in cost structure especially for the ratio between costs for consultations and costs for medication at the expense of basic health insurance. Patients reported better quality of the patient-physician relationship and fewer adverse side effects in CAM; higher cost-effectiveness for CAM can be deduced from this perspective.
Conclusion: This study uses a health system perspective and demonstrates at least equal or better cost-effectiveness of CAM in the setting of Swiss ambulatory care. CAM can therefore be seen as a valid complement to COM within Swiss health care.
Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Find original article HERE
Studer HP, Busato A.
Source
Speicherschwendi, University of Bern, Switzerland.Abstract
Background: From 1999 to 2005, 5 methods of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) applied by physicians were provisionally included into mandatory Swiss basic health insurance. Between 2012 and 2017, this will be the case again. Within this process, an evaluation of cost-effectiveness is required. The goal of this study is to compare practice costs of physicians applying CAM with those of physicians applying solely conventional medicine (COM). Methods: The study was designed as a cross-sectional investigation of claims data of mandatory health insurance. For the years 2002 and 2003, practice costs of 562 primary care physicians with and without a certificate for CAM were analyzed and compared with patient-reported outcomes. Linear models were used to obtain estimates of practice costs controlling for different patient populations and structural characteristics of practices across CAM and COM.Results: Statistical procedures show similar total practice costs for CAM and COM, with the exception of homeopathy with 15.4% lower costs than COM. Furthermore, there were significant differences between CAM and COM in cost structure especially for the ratio between costs for consultations and costs for medication at the expense of basic health insurance. Patients reported better quality of the patient-physician relationship and fewer adverse side effects in CAM; higher cost-effectiveness for CAM can be deduced from this perspective.
Conclusion: This study uses a health system perspective and demonstrates at least equal or better cost-effectiveness of CAM in the setting of Swiss ambulatory care. CAM can therefore be seen as a valid complement to COM within Swiss health care.
Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.
- PMID:
- 22189362
[PubMed - in process]
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Find original article HERE
Homeopaths versus family doctors a preliminary quantitative study
The impact of the medical speciality in primary health-care problem solving in Belo Horizonte, Brazil: homeopaths versus family doctors: a preliminary quantitative study. Homeopathy. 2012 Jan;101(1):44-50.
Iannotti G, Melo EM.
Copyright © 2011 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Original article can be found HERE
Iannotti G, Melo EM.
Source
Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC), Argentina; Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade José do Rosário Vellano (Unifenas), Belo Horizonte, Brazil; Instituto Mineiro de Homeopatia, Serviço Phýsis de Homeopatia, Belo Horizonte, Brazil; Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, Università degli studi di Macerata, Italy; Super Liga Chaves de Medicina.Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
This research project examined influence of the doctors' speciality on primary health care (PHC) problem solving in Belo Horizonte (BH) Brazil, comparing homeopathic with family health doctors (FH), from the management's and the patients' viewpoint. In BH, both FH and homeopathic doctors work in PHC. The index of resolvability (IR) is used to compare resolution of problems by doctors.METHODS:
The present research compared IR, using official data from the Secretariat of Health and test requests made by the doctors and 482 structured interviews with patients. A total of 217,963 consultations by 14 homeopaths and 67 FH doctors between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 were analysed.RESULTS:
The results show significant differences greater problem resolution by homeopaths compared to FH doctors.CONCLUSION:
In BH, the medical speciality, homeopathy or FH, has an impact on problem solving, both from the managers' and the patients' point of view. Homeopaths request fewer tests and have better IR compared with FH doctors. Specialisation in homeopathy is an independent positive factor in problem solving at PHC level in BH, Brazil.Copyright © 2011 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
- PMID:
- 22226314
[PubMed - in process]
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Original article can be found HERE
Homeopathic medicines substantially reduce the need for clotting factor concentrates in haemophilia patients
Results of a blinded placebo controlled cross over trial
Homeopathy. 2012 Jan;101(1):38-43.
Kundu T, Shaikh A, Kutty A, Nalvade A, Kulkarni S, Kulkarni R, Ghosh K.
Copyright © 2011 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Original article can be found HERE
Homeopathy. 2012 Jan;101(1):38-43.
Kundu T, Shaikh A, Kutty A, Nalvade A, Kulkarni S, Kulkarni R, Ghosh K.
Source
Haemophilia Care Centre:Nashik Chapter, Niramay Nursing Home, Adwait Colony, Canada Corner, Sharanpur Road, Nashik 422-005, India.Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Modern management of haemophilia patients is expensive: 90% of expenditure is on clotting factor concentrates. Any intervention which reduces the need for clotting factor concentrates in these patients without compromising the quality of life is of interest.AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:
To investigate the effectiveness of individualised homeopathic medicines in reducing the requirement of factor concentrates in haemophilia patients.MATERIALS AND METHODS:
In a single blind placebo controlled cross over trial 28 consecutive persons with haemophilia (PWH) with severe (24) or moderately severe (4) disease received standard management with placebo homeopathy for 1 year and active homeopathic treatment in the subsequent year with the same conventional management. There was no wash out period. They received standard managements for any acute emergency during the study period. Development of inhibitor during the study period was a withdrawal criterion. Sample size for the trial was calculated as 24 PWH. Transfusion requirements, bleeding scores, pain scores were evaluated blind by independent experts. Homeopathic medicines were selected by experienced homeopathic physicians depending on clinical condition of the patient. Chi-squared and paired t tests were used in statistical analysis.RESULTS:
28 patients were recruited. Homeopathic medicines improved frequency of bleeding, extent of bleeding, blood products consumed and pain scores (P<0.0001). There was also significant improvement in well being. Plasma levels of clotting factors did not change. No patients developed inhibitors during the study there were no dropouts.CONCLUSION:
Individualised homeopathic medicines may have an important supportive role in the management of PWH, where blood products and factor concentrates are not easily available. Larger, perhaps multicentric trials are warranted.Copyright © 2011 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
- PMID:
- 22226313
[PubMed - in process]
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Original article can be found HERE
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
PCOS: my journey to motherhood
Another Case history of infertility successfully treated by homeopath, Dr Johan P Prinsloo in Parent24.com
Before she fell pregnant with her son, Alexander, Antonella Dési tried for two years. This is her story.
By Antonella Dési
Pic: Getty Images
Article originally in Parent24
I was 28 years old when I was diagnosed with the syndrome, but I had been displaying symptoms of PCOS since my early teens. The symptoms I thought were just the result of unfortunate genes – excessive hairiness (which I put down to my Italian heritage), bad skin and stubborn extra weight that was exceptionally difficult to lose. The one and only symptom that I mistakenly and very naively thought was not too bad, was the fact that I only menstruated around three to six times a year.
All of these symptoms, bar the hairiness, tended to disappear when I was on the contraceptive pill – unlike most of my friends, I actually lost weight on the pill, my skin cleared up and my periods became to-the-minute regular – that is, until I stopped taking it, and then everything returned to the way it was before.
Even though I had been going for annual pap smears since I was 18 years old (cervical cancer is common in my family), not one of the gynaecologists I went to actually diagnosed me with PCOS. Fortunately, my current gynaecologist, Dr Sumayya Ebrahim made the diagnosis during my annual visit, after I told her that I was having trouble falling pregnant after being off the pill for a year. She told me that she could prescribe some medication, called Clomid, which ought to induce ovulation.
Dr Ebrahim spoke to me at length about the side effects of Clomid, informing me that like all drugs, Clomid affects each individual differently. She listed the common side effects as including abdominal bloating, abdominal and breast tenderness, skin changes, headaches and mood swings. What she failed to impress on me however, was that Clomid would not only make me ovulate, but that it would turn me into a hormonal, raving mad, devil woman, who truly and honestly thought she was losing her mind. Not only did this put strain on my marriage, but it went so far that I sought the advice of a psychologist, who informed me that it was probably the Clomid that was making me feel this way.
I decided to stop taking the medication and my mental state immediately improved. I consulted with Dr Ebrahim again, telling her that I had decided to stop taking Clomid, and she said that the next feasible option was to visit a fertility clinic. The idea of visiting a fertility clinic scared me – from the perspective of the hormonal and emotional ordeal it promised, as well as the exorbitant cost.
I understood that ultimately I would pay anything to become a mother, but I was also desperately looking for a more “natural” alternative that wouldn’t transform me into the hormonal heap of emotions that put such strain on me and my relationship. It was around this time that my sister-in-law told me that her sister, another sufferer of PCOS, had recently fallen pregnant by undergoing treatment from homeopath, Dr Johan P Prinsloo. I got his number and traveled all the way from Johannesburg to visit him in Pretoria.
Dr Prinsloo spoke to me for an hour – asking me a wide range of various questions, which I remember thinking were relatively irrelevant, but I answered them anyway. After that, he pricked my finger, took a sample of my blood on a glass slide and disappeared into his back rooms to diagnose it. After 10 or 15 minutes, he returned and advised me to stop using any form of lubricant, to use pads instead of tampons, and to take the drops and pills he had prescribed three times a day. He also told me not to worry about quitting smoking just yet, as it would stress me out and that stress is far more damaging for possible conception than smoking is. His advice to me was to carry on as normal – to enjoy life, have fun with my husband and to try and forget about babies.
I felt completely normal and at ease on Dr Prinsloo’s treatment, however, after taking it for eight months, nothing much happened, I lost faith in the treatment and stopped taking it. I had resigned myself to the fact that I would need to go to a fertility clinic, Vitalab, and made an appointment for a month’s time. My husband came with me to the clinic, where the fertility specialist, Dr Stephan Volschenk, asked me a few questions and performed an internal ultra sound examination, where he showed us my ovaries and the cysts. As expected, he diagnosed me PCOS and explained that I should expect a difficult road ahead to successfully fall pregnant. After seeing him, I was transferred to one of his consulting nurses, who prescribed the various medication and a blood test once my first menstrual cycle started.
Exactly four days later, I went for lunch with my older sister, Nicolina. I told her about the pending treatment and during the course of the meal, I also complained of my breasts being sore, which I thought was a good sign as it probably signalled the beginning of my period. Nicolina was insistent that I take a pregnancy test, even though I shirked her off believing that this was an impossibility, especially in light of the fact that I had just been to see a specialist.
“Surely he would’ve picked up on the fact that I was pregnant during the ultrasound, and besides, I have been told that I can’t fall pregnant on my own,” I thought.
Later that day, Nicolina visited me at home with a pregnancy test she had bought for me and insisted I take the test. And that was when I found out I was pregnant!
The next day, at an appointment with Dr. Ebrahim, she showed my husband and myself the heartbeat of my new son, who she told me was nine weeks old already. What a miracle!
Have you struggled to fall pregnant? Share your story below or visit our Trying like you forum.
Read more on: antonella dési | dr stephan volschenk | dr sumayya ebrahim | johannesburg | pretoria | pcos | my journey to motherhood | clomid
The original article can be read HERE
Before she fell pregnant with her son, Alexander, Antonella Dési tried for two years. This is her story.
By Antonella Dési
Pic: Getty Images
Article originally in Parent24
Related Articles
When my gynaecologist told me I had PCOS, I didn’t think much of it, until that is, she said that it could have severe negative effects on me trying to conceive. I remember my heart stopping when she said this – all I had ever wanted to do was to have baby of my own. This diagnosis marked the beginning of my two-and-a-half-year battle with “infertility”, which I am glad to say, I finally overcame.I was 28 years old when I was diagnosed with the syndrome, but I had been displaying symptoms of PCOS since my early teens. The symptoms I thought were just the result of unfortunate genes – excessive hairiness (which I put down to my Italian heritage), bad skin and stubborn extra weight that was exceptionally difficult to lose. The one and only symptom that I mistakenly and very naively thought was not too bad, was the fact that I only menstruated around three to six times a year.
All of these symptoms, bar the hairiness, tended to disappear when I was on the contraceptive pill – unlike most of my friends, I actually lost weight on the pill, my skin cleared up and my periods became to-the-minute regular – that is, until I stopped taking it, and then everything returned to the way it was before.
Even though I had been going for annual pap smears since I was 18 years old (cervical cancer is common in my family), not one of the gynaecologists I went to actually diagnosed me with PCOS. Fortunately, my current gynaecologist, Dr Sumayya Ebrahim made the diagnosis during my annual visit, after I told her that I was having trouble falling pregnant after being off the pill for a year. She told me that she could prescribe some medication, called Clomid, which ought to induce ovulation.
Dr Ebrahim spoke to me at length about the side effects of Clomid, informing me that like all drugs, Clomid affects each individual differently. She listed the common side effects as including abdominal bloating, abdominal and breast tenderness, skin changes, headaches and mood swings. What she failed to impress on me however, was that Clomid would not only make me ovulate, but that it would turn me into a hormonal, raving mad, devil woman, who truly and honestly thought she was losing her mind. Not only did this put strain on my marriage, but it went so far that I sought the advice of a psychologist, who informed me that it was probably the Clomid that was making me feel this way.
I decided to stop taking the medication and my mental state immediately improved. I consulted with Dr Ebrahim again, telling her that I had decided to stop taking Clomid, and she said that the next feasible option was to visit a fertility clinic. The idea of visiting a fertility clinic scared me – from the perspective of the hormonal and emotional ordeal it promised, as well as the exorbitant cost.
I understood that ultimately I would pay anything to become a mother, but I was also desperately looking for a more “natural” alternative that wouldn’t transform me into the hormonal heap of emotions that put such strain on me and my relationship. It was around this time that my sister-in-law told me that her sister, another sufferer of PCOS, had recently fallen pregnant by undergoing treatment from homeopath, Dr Johan P Prinsloo. I got his number and traveled all the way from Johannesburg to visit him in Pretoria.
Dr Prinsloo spoke to me for an hour – asking me a wide range of various questions, which I remember thinking were relatively irrelevant, but I answered them anyway. After that, he pricked my finger, took a sample of my blood on a glass slide and disappeared into his back rooms to diagnose it. After 10 or 15 minutes, he returned and advised me to stop using any form of lubricant, to use pads instead of tampons, and to take the drops and pills he had prescribed three times a day. He also told me not to worry about quitting smoking just yet, as it would stress me out and that stress is far more damaging for possible conception than smoking is. His advice to me was to carry on as normal – to enjoy life, have fun with my husband and to try and forget about babies.
I felt completely normal and at ease on Dr Prinsloo’s treatment, however, after taking it for eight months, nothing much happened, I lost faith in the treatment and stopped taking it. I had resigned myself to the fact that I would need to go to a fertility clinic, Vitalab, and made an appointment for a month’s time. My husband came with me to the clinic, where the fertility specialist, Dr Stephan Volschenk, asked me a few questions and performed an internal ultra sound examination, where he showed us my ovaries and the cysts. As expected, he diagnosed me PCOS and explained that I should expect a difficult road ahead to successfully fall pregnant. After seeing him, I was transferred to one of his consulting nurses, who prescribed the various medication and a blood test once my first menstrual cycle started.
Exactly four days later, I went for lunch with my older sister, Nicolina. I told her about the pending treatment and during the course of the meal, I also complained of my breasts being sore, which I thought was a good sign as it probably signalled the beginning of my period. Nicolina was insistent that I take a pregnancy test, even though I shirked her off believing that this was an impossibility, especially in light of the fact that I had just been to see a specialist.
“Surely he would’ve picked up on the fact that I was pregnant during the ultrasound, and besides, I have been told that I can’t fall pregnant on my own,” I thought.
Later that day, Nicolina visited me at home with a pregnancy test she had bought for me and insisted I take the test. And that was when I found out I was pregnant!
The next day, at an appointment with Dr. Ebrahim, she showed my husband and myself the heartbeat of my new son, who she told me was nine weeks old already. What a miracle!
Have you struggled to fall pregnant? Share your story below or visit our Trying like you forum.
Read more on: antonella dési | dr stephan volschenk | dr sumayya ebrahim | johannesburg | pretoria | pcos | my journey to motherhood | clomid
The original article can be read HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)