Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Hi Science indeed
- Ron Law (15 September 2002)
-
No Biological Basis for Autism?
- Alison O'Malley (19 September 2002)
-
Re: No Biological Basis for Autism?
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (20 September 2002)
-
Re: Re: No Biological Basis for Autism?
- Vanessa King (21 September 2002)
-
'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals
- Peter A Fisher, Bob Leckridge , George L Lewith (27 September 2002)
-
Re: 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals
- Rudi Verspoor (28 September 2002)
-
Re: 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals
- Julian Winston (28 September 2002)
-
Re: 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals
- Dr. HJD Jeggels MRCP(UK) (29 September 2002)
-
In the bear-pit of medical apartheid
- Peter Morrell (30 September 2002)
-
Re: Re: 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals
- Robert Fordham (3 October 2002)
-
Ramifications of study
- Michael Emmans Dean (4 October 2002)
-
Response from the Society of Homeopaths
- Susan C Crump, Melanie Oxley (7 October 2002)
-
The mess that is called Autism
- John Fryer (9 October 2002)
-
Aspects of MMR
- June Thompson (11 October 2002)
|
|
|||
|
Ron Law, Beyond Alternative Solutions
Send response to journal:
|
Ernst et al never cease to surprise at their ability to milk the complementary healthcare industry of research outputs. It would not take a rocket scientist to know that vaccination is not recommended by some CAM practitioners. There are many aspects of life where people disagree with government policy -- in fact it is the heart and soul of a democracy. New ZEaland is currently undergoing an epidemic of whooping cough. At the same time that the medical profession's key advocate is telling mothers they are paranoic about not getting their kids vaccinated, mothers who have bothered now have their children not only suffering from whooping cough, but their children are being mis diagnosed as having asthma, simply because the medical profession fails to accept that vaccination is not the panacea once thought. Perhaps Ernst et al could undertake further reserach; what is the probability of all 111 respondents not replying to such a request as his? Makes one wonder if they were too shamed to state publicly a view not in line with government policy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alison O'Malley, parent Carmel, Indiana, USA 46033
Send response to journal:
|
We have an epidemic of autism throughout the world. As a parent of a child with autism and a host of medical issues, I very frequently receive phone calls from parents with a new diagnosis for their child. I have seen and experienced first hand what this does to families. We must continue to search for answers. It makes no sense that such an epidemic occurs with a mere "genetic" cause. Many argue that awareness of autism has increased these diagnoses. But parents and some doctors know that our children are medically ill. Why does a psychiatric diagnosis cause diarrhea, eczema, ear infections, disturbances of the immune system, extreme allergies and unexplained fevers? Where is the logic in a genetic explanation when our children could talk in sentences and suddenly lost the ability to say anything? Was my child genetically programmed to stop looking me in the eye at the age of 18-20 months? Genes don't take away our ability to comprehend what we hear or any other abilities we have acquired for that matter. But we all know illnesses are capable of this. When a child loses skills and is sick, we have to examine all medical possibilities. Perhaps there are variants in this spectrum of autism, and some people with autism were simply born autistic. So if we look to an explanation surrounding vaccines or autoimmunity for a healthy adult with Asperger's Syndrome, it makes no sense. This new variant of autism is something quite different. Our children are sick. There are no coincidences with medical issues when they're all having so many of the same medical symptoms. I'm tired of the politics, the arguments about the MMR and vaccines. We need help, we need to continue biologically-based research as I'm convinced more and more each day that this is a medical issue that we should be treating. These children deserve care for their illnesses. A mother knows what a child cannot say. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK
Send response to journal:
|
In my book I refer to three broad reasons why there is an increase in autism. Firstly, better diagnoses; secondly, a shift to wider spectrum disorders; thirdly, a real increase in the number of children with the `new variant autism`. This new variant autism is just as described - the immune system has been compromised. I saw this in the late eighties - in a child who was medically vulnerable. So did many others - especially the parents whose children's futures are completely destroyed. This means that for over 10 years we have seen this pattern. Yet, over the last few days, we have heard about a number of UK children whose futures have been compromised because their A level scores have been tampered with. These young students speak about the work they have done, to now find they cannot go the the University of their choice. Quite appropriately, the Education Minister has arranged for an immediate remarking of the papers AND a public inquiry. This has taken a few days. Parents of new variant autistic children who cannot speak for themselves, who were once able to do so, and should have been able to continue to do so, and go on to take A levels and go to University - must be very angry indeed that they are light years away from a relook at their children and a public inquiry. Some of them have even been blamed for their children's problems. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vanessa King, Parent/carer
Send response to journal:
|
In response to Lisa Blakemore-Brown, I have to concur that children with her described "New Variant Autism" (NVA) do have a biological basis for the description of their austism, and it is high time such children are given medical credence and corresponding support. As the parent of a child with high-functioning autistic difficulties, I know the frustration and pain that my child (and I) suffer because there is no holistic medical recognition of NVA. For years we have been bounced from paediatrician to psychologist because the paediatrician would not recognise the physical ramifications of my son's disorder and instead tried to ascribe a psychiatric label to my son. These NVA children, like my son, were born NORMAL. Something happened to them (we don't know what - but vaccines are implicated) leaving them with a neurological disorder which is slowly degenerating their brain functions, correspondingly affecting many psychological and physical functions of the body - their immune system, cognition, motor skills, reasoning, bowel function, sleep patterns, behaviour etc. These children are highly vulnerable to suicide at a very early age due to the lack of support they and their parents receive (particularly the high-funcitoning NVAs), so how many children have to die before we intervene and acknowledge their pain? For the sake of the children, please let us have a Public Enquiry and more research into what is happening. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter A Fisher, Vice-president, Faculty of Homeopathy Faculty of Homeopathy, 15 Clerkenwell Close, London EC1R 0AA, Bob Leckridge , George L Lewith
Send response to journal:
|
Schmidt and Ernst risk causing confusion by their use of the term ‘professional homeopaths’, since the defining characteristic of this group is precisely that they are not members of any recognised health profession! Anyone can style her/himself ‘professional homeopath’, there is no mandatory registration or minimum standards of training, ethics etc. By contrast, the Faculty of Homeopathy is empowered by Act of Parliament to award diplomas to health professionals who must be registered with their respective statutory professional bodies. The two groups of homeopaths also differ sharply in their attitudes to immunisation. The Faculty’s longstanding policy is to advise immunisation according to Department of Health guidelines and recommends that immunisation be carried out in the normal way unless there are medical contra-indications. This too is the authentic homeopathic tradition: as early as 1810, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy strongly endorsed vaccination, presciently remarking that those who opposed it had never witnessed the terrible consequences of a smallpox epidemic.1 The Faculty of Homeopathy produces an information sheet for parents to explain its position.2 The title ‘professional homeopath’ is misleading and should not, in our view, be used unless and until it is invested with real meaning by legislation. The term non medically-qualified practitioners (NMQPs) is preferable. Peter Fisher
Bob Leckridge
George Lewith
References 1) Hahnemann S. Organon of the Medical Art. Tr O’Reilly WB, Birdcage Washington 1997. Para 46. 2) Homeopathy and immunisation factsheet. available from Faculty of
Homeopathy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rudi Verspoor, Director, HCH Ottawa, Canada K1C 7K9
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, I feel obliged to write to correct a serious misconception set out in a recent letter to the BMJ from Dr. Fisher et.al., complaining against the use of the term “professional homeopath.” Aside from the absurdity of the statement that lay homeopaths “are not members of any recognised health profession” (does that mean that so-called medical homeopaths are bereft of a health profession, namely homeopathic medicine? And if so, on what basis are they protesting?), the statement regarding Dr. Hahnemann’s views on vaccinations cannot be left unanswered. The Faculty of Homeopathy states, so I am told here, that Dr. Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, supported allopathic vaccinations and that patients are directed to follow the “normal (i.e., allopathic) vaccination schedule. This statement does not stand up to the facts of the matter. The Faculty position is justified on the basis of Dr. Hahnemann’s alleged support for smallpox vaccinations, citing Aphorism 46 of the Organon. Aphorism 46 only explains the principle behind the cure, by nature, of an existing disease by a similar disease, such as cowpox and smallpox. §.46.9. …due to their great similarity, the ensuing outbreak of smallpox is at least greatly diminished (homeopathically) and made more benign a] by the cowpox which has already neared its maturity... §. 46.9. a] This appears to be the reason for the beneficent, remarkable event that, since the general dispersal of Jenner's cowpox inoculation, smallpox has never again appeared among us either so epidemically or so virulently as 40-50 years ago when a city seized therewith would lose at least half and often threequarters of its children by the most wretched plague death. What is left out in the Faculty position is the whole issue of dose. Dr. Hahnemann pointed out clearly that the law of similars using nosodes or isodes is harmful because of the large (material) dose. To be safe, the application of disease material as a preventative (immunization) has to be diluted and succussed (potentized). §50.1. Great nature itself has as homeopathic curative implements, as we see, only a few established miasmatic diseases as aids: scabies, measles, and smallpox, a] a] and the above mentioned skin-eruption-tinder which moreover is to be found in the cowpox lymph, disease Potences which,b] b] namely smallpox and measles are partly, as remedies, more life-threatening and atrocious than the maladies to be cured therewith, and partly (like scabies), after cure of similar diseases is accomplished, require cure themselves in order to be extirpated in turn --both circumstances which make their employment as homeopathic means difficult, uncertain and dangerous. §.50.3. Only a few maladies can therefore be cured in the course of nature with these dubious and precarious homeopathic means, and success shows forth only with danger and great ailment, surely for the reason that the doses of these disease Potences do not lend themselves to reduction according to circumstances, as can be done with medicinal doses; on the contrary, the one afflicted with an old similar malady is covered over with the entire dangerous and troublesome suffering, the entire smallpox-, measles- or scabies-disease, in order to recover from the old similar malady. §.56.4. a] 3. But this intending to cure by means of an entirely identical disease Potence [that is, using a crude substance] contradicts all healthy common sense and therefore all experience also. §.56.4. a]7. But meaning to cure a human disease … with an identical human disease matter — that is going too far! §.56.4. a] 8. Nothing results from it but calamity and aggravation of the disease! The conclusion is clear. Dr. Hahnemann supported the principle of immunization, but not the “normal” (i.e., allopathic, crude dose) approach, quite the contrary. He stated, presciently as it seems based on official statistics, that such an approach to prevention would lead to death and destruction. Perhaps the Faculty should review its position on this matter. Sincerely, Rudi Verspoor, FHCH, Rhom. Director, Hahnemann Center for Heilkunst Ottawa, Canada hchclinic@netscape.net |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Julian Winston, co-director, WEllington College of Homeopathy Wellington College of Homeopathy, PO Box 51-156, Tawa, Wellington 6006 New Zealand
Send response to journal:
|
In a recent letter to the BMJ, Drs. Fischer, Leckridge, and Lewith question the use of the term "professional homeopath." They say that such people have "no mandatory registration or minimum standards of training, ethics etc. I cannot speak for those elsewhere, but in New Zealand, the "professional homeopaths" DO have register which requires minimum standards of training, as well as a complete code of ethics. The New Zealand government, through the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has established a qualification leading to a Diploma of Homeopathy. The standards to which this diploma is assessed meets the standards of the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths-- the group which administers the register. The standards were developed to meet the standards suggested in the educational guidelines published by the International Council of Classical Homeopathy. I suggest that the people the good doctors are thinking about are "lay homeopaths"-- those with no standards of training, no registration, no code of ethics, etc. Furthermore, as homeopathy is becoming more recognized in NZ, and as most medical practitioner view homeopathy as something outside their domain, more surgeries are having Registered Homeopaths working within their domain. While the authors might not view "professional homeopaths" as "health professionals" that is certainly NOT the case in New Zealand. In the same letter the doctors defended the Faculty's position on vaccination in a way which suggested that "medical" folk are in agreement with vaccination while "professional homeopaths" are not. Might I point out the resolution that was passed by the International Hahnemannian Association (a group of ONLY medical doctors) in 1924 at their Cleveland meeting: Read by Dr. Dienst: WHEREAS, The IHA, an association of regularly and legally qualified and licensed practicing physicians, knowing that the greatest and safest prophylactic against contagion of whatever nature is good health and its maintenance, and WHEREAS, This Association is opposed to the introduction of a morbific substance into the bloodstream of children, the results of which are often more injurious than the contagion it is supposed to prevent, WHEREAS, Only those susceptible to contagion are in any danger of infection, and WHEREAS, It is very difficult to differentiate between the susceptible and those who are not susceptible, causing, thereby, in a general vaccination, the infliction of pain and discomfort, if not incurable maladies on innocent and healthy children, and WHEREAS, There are safe, sure, and reliable remedies, non-poisonous, which prevent contagion when properly administered, and WHEREAS, Vaccination has caused many severe diseases, some of them like cancer and tuberculosis, malignant, and other organic changes, such as deafness, impaired vision, necrosis of bone, impaired digestion, etc. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1st, That we urge the necessity of hygiene, sanitation, and the use of properly indicated remedies in the maintenance of health. RESOLVED, 2nd, That we urge the rational use of the internal potentized remedy in times of epidemics, or prevalence of contagion as a prophylactic. RESOLVED, 3rd, That we oppose compulsory and promiscuous vaccination by scarification, on all children, (except by consent of parent or guardian). The Resolution was passed by the membership. Sincerely yours, Julian Winston Co-Director, Wellington College of Homeopathy Tawa, New Zealand |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. HJD Jeggels MRCP(UK), Medical Practitioner & Homoeopath Cape Town, South Africa.
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, The response of Drs. Fischer, Leckridge, and Lewith represents the deplorable UK domestic Homoeopathic relations, which have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the world. They can also be accused of causing confusion by raising the issue of the term “professional homoeopaths” in an international magazine, as if this issue affects us internationally. The Faculty of Homoeopathy’s position in relation to the “professional homoeopaths” (PH), is deplorable, as the stature of Homoeopathy in the UK and elsewhere in the world, whether that be the US or SA, has been kept alive by the very same PH’s and not the MD’s, since Homoeopathy was driven out of medical schools!! That is a fact evidenced by the previous Apartheid Government of SA, which by act of that parliament established 2 Homoeopathic colleges attached to what is known in the UK as Polytechnics. These colleges have the same curricula as a medical school, except for the fact that Homoeopathy is reigning. One of the main reasons for its establishment was the fact that the medical schools would not cater for the training in Homoeopathy, whilst the need for training in Homoeopathy demanded it. Dr. Leckridge is very well aware of this fact as he has been to SA on a number of occasions, and is also aware that the relations here are much more healthier than in the UK. Would the Faculty kindly remind themselves that most of the famous international masters of Homoeopathy are not MD's!! In SA many MD's initially received their Homoeoapathic training from PH's! I consider it dishonesty to adopt this adversarial position. For the Faculty to imply that their statutory institution is the only one to train Homoeopaths, would also imply that we have to wait for MD’s trained at the Materialistic and Reductionistic medical schools to make up their mind to train in Homoeopathy, would have meant the death of Homeopathy altogether long ago. I would suggest that the Faculty get off their high horse and engage the PH’s in a positive way. They cannot wish these colleges away, therefore assist in their registration, cooperate in the teaching and training, and strive to open the hospitals to expose those graduates to the whole ambit of suffering man. This is your challenge. This challenge I have taken up long ago by having participated in the training for registration of some of the PH’s by the statutory bodies. Furthermore I am an officially accredited provider of Continuous Professional Development (CPD), accredited by the Allopathic Statutory Body, for both MD’s and PH’s who attend my consultations twice weekly! Please show you are magnanimous to assist in elevating ALL Homoeopathic practitioners. A cause for concern for the Faculty is the lack of audit of their own graduates. You indeed have problems that you need to address, as the lack of excellence to achieve results, drives some of you graduates into that materialistic and reductionistic psuedo discipline called “Integrated Medicine”. This subject is beyond this response to elaborate on further. Yours sincerely, H Jeggels. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Morrell, freelance researcher, history of medicine, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Sir,
The letter by Fisher et al [1] is seriously misleading on a number of factual and historical points of interest that really demand some correction. 1. First, they are wrong to state that Hahnemann supported vaccination. The information they quote in Aph 46 of the Organon needs to be seen in the context of the book as a whole, which unfolds rather like a medical Origin of Species, in the sense that he invokes and inspects masses of data that are suggestive of various patterns. Aph 46 is a small part of an ongoing discussion about the nature of diseases and drugs and the impacts each make upon the human organism. In particular, Hahnemann was keen to demonstrate that the law of similars is a medical fact not only in relation to the effects of drugs but also by one disease displacing a similar disease. The upshot of this still does NOT support the idea of vaccination, partly because of the size of the dose, which Rudi Verspoor has already mentioned [2], and partly because vaccination is always a mass applied technique, which homeopathy is almost the direct opposite of, relying as it does for efficacy on the individualised treatment of each patient. 2. Vaccination did not really begin to take off [1890s] until long after Hahnemann died [1843]. Regardless of his specific views about Smallpox, it is hard to believe he would have condoned immunisation, going as it does completely against the rational basis of homeopathy, which does not prescribe crude doses of drugs for disease labels, groups of symptoms or whole populations. The comments Fisher et al make, therefore reveal a lamentably desultory knowledge of homeopathic principles and the history of what they profess to be their main subject of expertise. It is no coincidence that this letter follows the recent publication in the BMJ of Lewith’s ill-conceived, inconclusive and faultily concluded study of house-dust potency [3], which also demonstrated beyond much doubt their very poor grasp of even the very basic homeopathic principle of individualising the drug per patient instead of using one isopathic preparation en masse for allergic asthma. 3. Another of their misapprehensions concerns the practice of homeopathy in the UK by MD homeopaths. Although only a dwindling minority of ‘professional homeopaths’ remain without any qualification in that subject, by contrast, any MD can practise homeopathy and treat people without any restriction in this country and they are bound by no ethical constraints apart from those they must observe as a doctor registered with the GMC. There is no obligation on them to join the Faculty of Homeopathy. In essence, this means that there is no guidance or regulation placed upon the MD to practise homeopathy according to any clearly established or agreed-upon principles or ethics. They can do as they wish and prescribe as they wish. This stands in sharp contrast to ‘professional homeopaths,’ who are constrained by their professional bodies and codes of ethics. 4. Why should any homeopath have any need to qualify as MD first? Brian Inglis ably answered this question almost 40 years ago: “The other alternative would be [for lay homoeopaths] to... establish independent training colleges, like the osteopaths; and start again at the bottom of the social ladder. A homoeopathic medical school would not require a wholly new curriculum... to some extent the allopathic case needs to be mastered even by those students who are going to reject it; but this is not the same as insisting that a student who wants to become a homoeopath must first complete the full allopathic course. To compel him to do so is as illogical as it would be to compel a judo trainee to complete a full professional training as a boxer before he can begin to learn judo. The homoeopath needs to know quite a lot about allopathy, but he should not be required actually to qualify in a method with which he is fundamentally in disagreement.” [4] 5. The whole tone of this letter stands in very marked contrast to an article Fisher wrote in 1988 [5] in which he argued a case for playing down the elitist and divisive demarcation that has long stood between the lay and the doctor homeopathic traditions in the UK, thus leading, one presumes, to much greater dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation. Why the change of heart 14 years later? Though Hahnemann did not encourage lay practitioners per se, two of his star pupils were non-medically qualified persons – Dr Carl von Boenninghaussen [1785-1864], a Botanist, and Hahnemann’s second wife Melanie d’Hervilly Gohier [1801-1878], who both enjoyed long and busy medical practices. Therefore, the contention that NMQPs, as Dr Fisher pejoratively chooses to call them, are somehow less than capable practitioners, is not borne out by the historical facts. That very influential British homeopath, Dr John Henry Clarke [1857-1931] also famously taught several lay homeopaths, as did Dr Thomas Maughan [1901-76], who taught many of the ‘leading lights’ in modern British homeopathy. Many other examples could be adduced. Again, the historical facts militate against the arguments presented in this letter by Fisher et al. 6. As Rudi Verspoor and Julian Winston have already pointed out [2, 6], ‘professional homeopaths’ are certainly ‘health professionals’ in a similar sense that chiropractors, acupuncturists, osteopaths, herbalists, nurses, dentists and physiotherapists are also ‘health professionals,’ and to contend otherwise is both churlish and inaccurate. 7. Finally, it is noteworthy that the recent revival of alternative medicine, which dates from 1978-79, has been mostly driven forwards NOT by MD practitioners, but by the sheer weight of patient demand and those qualified and talented NMQPs around the world who have been inspired to set up Colleges and professional associations to meet that public demand for natural medicine. Indeed, in the UK it is not a distortion to say that this resurgence of homeopathy has been almost entirely driven by lay practitioners since 1979 and that the doctor homeopaths have been more or less ‘left behind’ in the growth of a whole movement. The number of fully qualified medical homeopaths on the Faculty's register is virtually the same now as it was 10 years ago. Throughout the 20th century, they barely lifted a finger to promote homeopathy to any ‘public’ except one composed of royals and aristocrats, with whom they have been exclusively concerned as a professional niche virtually from the inception of homeopathy in the UK in the 1830s. Little wonder, then, that the Faculty and the British Homeopathic Association were for most of that century regarded as idle backwaters of medical deviance and little more than rich-men’s talking shops in which ‘progress’ and ‘public acceptance’ were very dirty words. Clearly, their original policy of tying UK homeopathy very firmly to a rich clientele has profoundly backfired in recent decades. Numerically outnumbered for over two decades, and virtually powerless, the Faculty is no longer the dominant voice of British homeopathy, so why should anyone listen to their complaints? Sources [1] BMJ e-letter, 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals, Peter A Fisher, Bob Leckridge , George L Lewith (27 September 2002) http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7364/597#25842 [2] BMJ e-letter, Re: 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals, Rudi Verspoor (28 September 2002) http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7364/597#25867 [3] Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial, G T Lewith, A D Watkins, M E Hyland, S Shaw, J A Broomfield, G Dolan, and S T Holgate BMJ 2002; 324: 520. BMJ 2002;324:520 (2 March) http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7336/520 [4] Brian Inglis, Fringe Medicine, London: Faber, 1964, 93 [5] Peter Fisher, Time To Grasp The Nettle?, The Homeopath, 7:3, London, Spring 1988, 101-105 [6] BMJ e-letter, Re: 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals, Julian Winston (28 September 2002) http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7364/597#25869 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert Fordham, Professional Homeopath, Lecturer in Homeopathy Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh
Send response to journal:
|
In defining the nature of a profession, a professional and professional work so narrowly, Drs Fisher, Leckridge and Lewith might well be correct in asserting that the term professional homeopath is misleading. For me, professionalism in health care is defined by the manner of one’s approach to the grey areas of practice: problem-solving, interpretation, consideration of evidence, exercise of clinical judgement and the evaluation of ethical imperatives, for example. This stands in stark contrast to the possession of a degree, a diploma or the membership of a professional body as the defining characteristic. Were the latter adequately to define a professional, it would surely follow that possession of a qualification would banish all wrong-doing in the professional life. Clearly this is not the case. There is surely much more to being a health professional than working within externally defined guidelines and protocols. I have been a registered member of the Society of Homeopaths since 1987. The Society does have a vaccination policy to guide me in working with patients. It defines my role as essentially helping parents to weigh up the arguments presented by both sides in order to arrive at a decision they feel most comfortable with. This is an invitation to me, as a professional, to work with parents and encourage them to weigh up evidence themselves. In practice, exercising this role over the years has meant that the whole range of options has been followed by my patients. Some have indeed followed DoH guidelines, others have refused all vaccinations, still others have sought separate M, M and R vaccinations for their children. My belief is we all have a right to choose. Our GP – when we wished to discuss our daughter’s immunisation programme at an early post- natal follow up – said: ‘If she dies, you’ll only have yourselves to blame.’ He stormed out – no discussion. Nothing. When I’d recovered from the shock, I hoped he’d come back – so I could throw him out! Possession of MB BS, MRCGP, etc. offered no guarantee to us that our query would be met ‘professionally’. That said, some of my best friends are doctors! Some of my closest professional colleagues and mentors have been Members of the Faculty of Homeopathy. We have worked together as partners, mainly in education for professional practice, but also in writing for publication and in supervision of clinical work. Our differing backgrounds and experiences have created dynamic learning experiences. I value this genuine professional collegiality, with real critical distance and palpable challenges to my own practice, very highly. It is experiences like these that give me hope that a strong, credible health profession will indeed emerge from these exciting times. The tone and intent of the Faculty of Homeopathy with respect to professional homeopathy is visible from as far away as South Africa and New Zealand. It sounds increasingly shrill, partisan and ill conceived. I am personally convinced that the future of homeopathy in the UK will owe more to the legislative structures described by Julian Winston in New Zealand and collegial professional attitudes like those of Dr Jeggels in South Africa. We are actively engaged in building a new homeopathic profession. As an institution, the Faculty of Homeopathy seems intent in defining the terms in which this happens exceedingly narrowly. The Society of Homeopaths received a strong endorsement of its work in professional education, regulation, codes of ethics and practice and professional conduct and so on after a House of Lords inquiry. Work continues with the establishment of an independent Council of Organisations Registering Homeopaths (partly funded by the Prince of Wales’ Foundation for Integrated Health); the support of the NHS Alliance, public and patients’ lobby organisations; an increasing interest in integrated medicine in higher education and pioneering projects supported by PCTs nationally. This work is being carried out in a thoroughly rigorous manner and is a credit to an emerging profession. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Emmans Dean, Honorary Visiting Fellow Department of Health Sciences, , University of York, YORK YO10 5DD
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Iain Chalmers, of the UK Cochrane Centre, was recently interviewed by Dr Jonathan Miller for a BBC documentary series on public health history and policy.[1] He stated that parents who opt for single vaccines are making a rational choice in the face of the probably very slight, but as yet undetermined, risk associated with MMR. He objected strongly to the way they have been unfairly ‘lambasted’ by the medical profession and government. Since the risks are unquantified, it’s hardly surprising then that researchers from Exeter University discovered that many complementary practitioners advised against MMR.[2] In the light of the institutional bullying that Sir Iain drew attention to, it’s equally unsurprising that the BMJ did not publish the letter under the title, ‘Survey shows that GPs ignore parents’ written request for MMR advice’. The survey would have been more informative, however, had it looked for alternatives to government policy recommended by the study sample. Do they advise uptake of single vaccines? Or are they opposed to any immunization programme? If the latter, what do they advocate instead? Do homeopaths offer prophylactic homeopathy, for instance? And if so, would this involve constitutional treatment, with traditional plant and mineral remedies, or isopathic medicines derived from infectious agents? Most importantly, what epidemiological or clinical evidence are any recommendations and treatments based on? We need answers to these questions, given the large and increasing number of consultations with complementary practitioners, and the influence that any health provider has when advising parents on their children’s health. Whether covert surveillance, as used by Professor Ernst’s department in this and other studies,[3] is the most appropriate way to find out is another matter. The large percentage of replies withdrawn after disclosure of deception in the MMR survey suggests it has serious limitations. 1. Miller J. The nation’s health: BBC Radio 4, 19 September, 2002. 2. Schmidt K, Ernst E. Survey shows that some homoeopaths and chiropractors advise against MMR. BMJ 2002;325(14 September):597. 3. Resch KI, Ernst E, Garrow J. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. JRSM 2000;93(4):164–167. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Susan C Crump, Chair, Society of Homeopaths 4a Artizan Road, Northampton,NN1 4HU, Melanie Oxley
Send response to journal:
|
Re: professional homeopaths are not health professionals With regard to the original letter from K Schmidt and E Ernst (1) we were dismayed to discover that this had been published as their research appears to have been based on a survey which used dubious and possibly unethical methods in order to extract potentially sensational information. Public confidence in our profession may have been dealt a blow by this irresponsible piece of reporting. We wish to make it clear that the Society of Homeopaths does not encourage its members to advise patients against vaccination. The Society acknowledges that there is much anecdotal and scientific evidence to support the arguments presented both for and against vaccination. The Society believes that parents should be supported in making rational informed decisions about the short and long-term implications of vaccination for their children. Many of the points we might wish to make in relation to the letter from Drs Fisher, Leckridge and Lewith (2) have already been well presented by other contributors to this correspondence, including Robert Fordham RSHom. As he has indicated, homeopaths on the Society's Register have been trained to a very high standard and then undergone a rigorous registration process. This registration process uses as one of its main reference points the National Occupational Standards for Homeopathy, published in 2000 (3): the Society of Homeopaths, the Faculty of Homeopathy and other homeopathic organisations all contributed to the development of these Standards. Our members are fully insured, abide by a strict Code of Ethics and Practice and are expected to participate in regular CPD activities. The Society's development as a professional organisation was commended by the House of Lords Select Committeee Report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (4). This Report also recommended that the different organisations representing homeopaths should come together to set up a single register. Acknowledging that it can be difficult for members of the public to make sense of the plethora of qualifications and professional organisations, the Society of Homeopaths is therefore working with other bodies in the Council of Organisations Registering Homeopaths (CORH) in order to establish a single register. Drs. Leckridge, Fisher and Lewith should be fully aware of these developments. Susan Crump
Melanie Oxley
1. Schmidt K, Ernst E. Survey shows that some homeopaths and chiropractors adise against MMR. BMJ 2002;325 (14 September); 597. 2. Fisher P, Leckridge B, Lewith GL. 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals. BMJ 2002 e-letter (27 September) 3. National Occupational Standards for Homeopathy. Healthwork UK. 2000. 4. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology 6th Report: Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The Stationery Office, November 2000. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Fryer, Retired Scientist Home
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, Autism does exist. It causes almost life time problems to those who have it. It is a growing problem in the UK. I think these are facts? We therefore need to find out why children suffer from it and put a stop to it. The fact that educated people quarrel bitterly about the cause or even refuse to discuss the cause would seem to indicate that we are not doing modern research the correct way. We are applying too blunt a research tool on the problem perhaps? Perhaps we are losing sight of what is going on by too many studies? To me the power of individual case studies is supreme. Child X talking, perhaps having a vaccine and then regressing to autism. The child having fever - a sign of infection. The child having an illness which he or she had a vaccine for. All very inconvenient. We need to plan forward looking experiments going over this ground with individual studies and having a visible record all can see and check up on. We need to agree in advance what certain results would tell us and what action would be required - beforehand! To keep the controversy going is to abuse children and abusers are typically locked away in prison for life. We need doctors to provide answers not to argue and keep themselves in highly paid research work which tells us nothing. John Fryer Unpaid Scientific Health Researcher |
|||
|
|
|||
|
June Thompson, Health visitor London
Send response to journal:
|
I am surprised that only half of the homeopaths surveyed were against MMR. I have met many homeopaths and found all are against all types of immunisation, not only MMR. Well before the MMR controversy the mantra of homeopaths was and appears to remain that having measles is good for a child as it "boosts their immune system" I have never been able to obtain an explaination of why, if it does this, some children can die or have permanent disability from measles. My biggest horror was hearing a Homeopathic lecturer who trains large numbers of homeopath students, tell a group of nurses, midwives and health visitors not only the measles mantra but that "immunisation causes cot death." Even worse, none of these other health professionals appeared to be concerned to hear such a statement being made. I am also finding that cranial osteopaths have jumped on this anti- immunisation bandwagon. As a number of my clients visit cranial osteopathy centres and complementary therapists with their young babies, I now try to make a point of advising mothers before their visit that they will hear antiimmunisation propoganda and that it is important for their child's health that they ignore this. Finally, perhaps the researchers could also to evaluate the number of homeopaths who advise mothers to take their young babies off dairy products on the grounds that their eczema or any other problem is due to cow's milk allergy. Again, in my experience this advice is invariably given. June Thompson |
|||