Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Pandering to the Prince
- richard horton (7 October 2005)
-
The Laws Of Nature - Natural Science
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (9 October 2005)
-
Prof Ernst almighty attorney
- R W SCHWARZ (9 October 2005)
-
Re: Pandering to the Prince ? No.Complimentary therapies do fill in the gaps ...and help much more..
- Dr. Bhalendu S. Vaishnav (9 October 2005)
-
Horton's Ill-Judged Remarks
- Jay Ilangaratne (9 October 2005)
-
Re: Pandering to the Prince
- John Stone (9 October 2005)
-
Scientific research is the same for CAMs as such as conventional treatments
- Firenzuoli Fabio, Gori Luigi (9 October 2005)
-
Calling A Spade A Spade
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (9 October 2005)
-
Re: Pandering to the Prince - Rather a Simplistic View
- Jayne LM Donegan (11 October 2005)
-
Pandering to medicine
- Don Nixdorf (11 October 2005)
-
Re: Calling A Spade A Spade
- Michael O'Donnell (11 October 2005)
-
Re: Calling A Spade A Spade
- Michael Foley (11 October 2005)
-
Truth Hurts - Why prosecute Dr. Horton?
- Balaji Ravichandran (11 October 2005)
-
Re: Dangerous treatment
- Theo Fenton (12 October 2005)
-
Science Fiction
- Roberta Smith (12 October 2005)
-
Re: Re: Dangerous treatment
- Theo Fenton (12 October 2005)
-
Re: Re: Dangerous treatment
- Jayne LM Donegan (12 October 2005)
-
What is "Tap water"?
- F. Ambrosi (12 October 2005)
-
Homeopathy - yet again !
- Andrew D Lawson (13 October 2005)
-
Re: Truth Hurts - Why prosecute Dr. Horton?
- Donald E. J. Pyle (13 October 2005)
-
Re: What is "Tap water"?
- Tim M Reynolds (13 October 2005)
-
Re: Pandering to the Prince.
- Richard G Fiddian-Green (14 October 2005)
-
Re: Re: What is "Tap water"?
- Franco Ambrosi (14 October 2005)
-
Re: Re: Pandering to the Prince - Rather a Simplistic View
- Simon J Baker (16 October 2005)
-
Re: Re: Re: What is "Tap water"?
- Simon J Baker (16 October 2005)
-
Pandering to science
- Peter Morrell (16 October 2005)
-
Re: Re: Calling A Spade A Spade
- Eddie Vos (16 October 2005)
-
Re: Pandering to science
- Simon J Baker (17 October 2005)
-
Errare Humanum Est
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (19 October 2005)
-
Re: Re: Pandering to science
- Joseph C Watine (19 October 2005)
-
Two questions on homoeopathy
- Morag G Kerr (19 October 2005)
-
Logic will never convince the faithful
- Onisillos Sekkides (22 October 2005)
-
Re: Re: Re: Pandering to science
- Simon J Baker (22 October 2005)
|
|
|||
|
richard horton, editor, the lancet London NW1 7BY
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Graeme Catto describes the report on complementary and alternative medicine as "welcome" and a "practical way forward". The President of the General Medical Council has therefore endorsed the following statement from the summary of the report (page 11): "Our survey of the evidence indicates that the best evidence for homeopathy, in terms both of improved health benefits and reduced costs, is associated with its use as an alternative to conventional medicine in relation to a number of everyday conditions in general care, particularly asthma". Asthma kills about 1400 people in the UK every year. It is a life- threatening condition that can be successfully controlled by the effective use of modern medicines. To conclude in a high-profile report such as this that these medications can be safely substituted with homeopathic remedies - in essence, tap water (if one still subscribes to the laws of physics and chemistry) - is dangerous and irresponsible. It is even more so when the President of the GMC offers his support and endorsement of the report. He should issue an immediate retraction of his endorsement. And he must issue a statement asserting that patients should not abandon medications prescribed to control their asthmatic symptoms and disease. To do so in exchange for homeopathic remedies could quite simply cost them their lives. What is to be made of this situation? Have doctors really become so deluded by the Prince, his wayward meanderings into the recesses of medievalism, and a credulous public that we are prepared to sacrifice all of the advances of scientific medicine on the grounds of compromise with quackery? It seems to be so for some of our medical leaders. One can only sigh in despair or turn away in disgust. The Prince's report is itself potentially life-threatening. Doctors should come out and say so instead of pandering to a Prince for reasons that are both inexplicable and mysterious. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich, Private Practice Bribie Island, Australia 4507
Send response to journal:
|
Needless to say, the utilisation of complementary therapies would save money. It would also improve the general health of the population in two different ways. One, through a restoration of optimal function through appropriate user-friendly treatment, two through the avoidance of interventional strategies which are first and foremost aimed at selling pharmaceuticals. The Royal Family seems to have a history of using and advocating complementary therapies, which really ought to be called natural measures. However, in today's world it is neither politically nor otherwise correct to do what should come naturally. It is the suppression of symptoms and the worldwide hyper-concerted effort to declare everyone sick and in need of treatment. Treatments sought are those that palliate and make the patient dependent upon medication whose price he has no control over or choice in. If the NHS, or any other system were serious in saving money it would start with the long overdue clean-up of the gremlins that make us sick in the first place. May I briefly mention food, water, environment. It was stated that previous studies by the NHS have found that complementary therapies tended to cost more than conventional treatment. That is no more convincing than the propaganda by the Mayo Foundation some decades back when they found that Linus Pauling's theory on Vitamin C was faulty. They did not duplicate his experiments. More recently, it was shown that Vitamin C, a most natural substance, was able to kill 100 % of all lymphoma cells, yet the response by the establishment was very lukewarm.. In closing, I still remember the debate involving Professor Baum on this site. I am convinced that Professor Baum, whose mind was made up way back before the Laetrile theory had hatched, has not taken a look at natural therapies, something that Prince Charles had hoped he and others of the establishment would do. Natural therapies are no money spinners. The goose that lays the golden egg is as far removed from common sense and healthy living as the hand-painted decoy duck is from the real quack. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
R W SCHWARZ, pediatrician Quellengasse 42,8010 GRAZ/Austria
Send response to journal:
|
Congratulations to the Article about CAM and money saving. It really seems necessary to make studies about the different CAM methods or to realize the already done ones.I wonder what is the reason of Prof Ernsts preference usually to give negative comments on all CAM studies not done by himself. I am curious which of the different CAM-methods are practised by himself, so that he could be called as an expert for these methods? I wonder why patients search for CAM doctors though official medicine criminalizes CAM? Ernsts arguments concerning different CAM methods do not proof by means of independent staticians, for example the study about upper airway infections published in the Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift. I do hope that much more CAM studies are made to show the possibilities of the different methods. The Austrian board of medical doctors has approved quite a large number of CAM methods to protect patients from quackery. Excuse my poor English R Schwarz Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Bhalendu S. Vaishnav, Addl.Professor, Dept.Of Medicine , P.S.Medical college, Karamsad,India .Pin 388325
Send response to journal:
|
Health is too wide a domain to be monopolised by any one medical science. After all, a science is nothing else but a systematic and focussed study of one aspect of life or nature.At its best the scientific study offers only a partial comprehension of the truth that we seek to explore,to grasp. The particle-wave duality theory of light is an example of bringing together two seemingly irreconciliable physical phenomina under one umbrella i.e. the matter as expression of energy and energy as a source of matter. This may well provide a common platform to view conventional and alternative therapies in a balanced way. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder medical-journals.com
Send response to journal:
|
Upon reasonable and dispassionate interpretation, the words "welcome" and "practical way forward" do not suggest that the GMC President has endorsed the passage[1] which Horton seems to be so miffed about.Launching personal attacks against the GMC President or Prince Charles,is hardly the best way to initiate a proper debate against homeopathy.It is unfortunate that Horton has used a BMJ-facility to outpour his emotions against two individuals.Argubaly, being associated with a medical journal which is owned by group with close links to the arms industry,is a greater evil than promoting homeopathy. References [1]http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/331/7520/795-a#118608 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Many people are fed up with institutional arguments masquerading as scientific ones. So many pharma products are less effective and less safe than they should be or is ever admitted, and in most cases scientific understanding of how they work - if they do - is incomplete. When we have less arrogance and bullying we will quite certainly have better science. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Firenzuoli Fabio, Director Center Natural Medicine S. Giuseppe Hospital- Az USL11 Empoli, via Paladini 1, 50053 Empoli, ITALY - www.naturamedica.net, Gori Luigi
Send response to journal:
|
We think that this official report can be a very important step to improve and qualify scientific research in the field of CAMs, not a point of arrival but an important stimulus both for scientists and politicians. The possibility to have a low cost and well tolerated treatment is simply another device in the hands of physician and not a Holy Graal to believe in. The chance to use CAMs and to save money does not mean to stop using corticosteroid, aminophilline, beta-blockers or substitute surgery and chemotherapy with any strange remedy, this would be simply wrong; but we cannot forget some years ago St. John’s Wort and Saw palmetto extracts were considered only “herbs” and now are registered drugs; to be an acupuncturist was considered to be something like a sciaman and now have been published metanalysis on these topics. There are many different CAMs that and can be used in many ways, proper and improper, but if patients appreciating these treatment are constantly growing all over the world probably it is not a case neither a mistake. Expert physicians know that regular clinical researches have shown that some CAMs are useful for certain diseases, and in some instances better than conventional treatments ; and that it is not always easy to choose the best CAM treatment, there can be adverse reactions, drugs interferences, and sometimes can be wiser to advice conventional treatment, for this reasons too, in our courses and congresses we always state that CAMs should be administered only by physicians. In recent years Public Health Service of Tuscany Region in Italy has developed a network of 64 public services based on CAMs. Following recent researches and citizens’s appreciation Regional Government has decided that from this year Tuscany Region offers to its residents phytotherapy and homeopathic consultations , acupuncture and chirotherapy treatments in the same way and costs as a cardiological or surgical consultations and nevertheless different level of efficacy and effectiveness has started a process to insert these four complementary disciplines in the flow of mainstream medicine. 1.Menniti-Ippolito F, Mazzanti G, Firenzuoli F, Bianchi A, Raschetti R. Pilot study for the surveillance of adverse reactions to herbal preparations and dietary supplements Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2005;41(1):39-42 2. Firenzuoli F, Gori L, Neri D.Clinical phytotherapy: opportunities and problematics. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2005;41(1):27-33. 3. Firenzuoli F, Gori L, Calapai C.Adverse reaction to an adrenergic herbal extract (Citrus aurantium). Phytomedicine. 2005 ;12(3):247-8. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich, Private Practice Bribie Island, Australia 4507
Send response to journal:
|
Far be it from me to deny the advances and achievments of "scientific" medicine, but Dr. Horton's comments don't quite ring true. It is scaremongering. It is arrogant to talk about the superiority of modern medicines as compared to the more traditional therapies, also, we ought to always keep in mind the cost to human lives and the humongous amounts of money spent in the pursuit of "health care". Yet, we are quite helpless when faced with many of the modern killer diseases. Many of the traditional therapies and therapeutics are highly effective, few have significant side effects and none are used on the basis of hit and miss as are many allopathic remedies. The history of medicine, or perhaps its track record, shows us the conquest of major diseases but also a shameful and ruthless attitude toward competition, resulting in untold human suffering and countless deaths. Let us not forget what Modern Medicine has advanced to: It is the number one leading cause of death today. The idea, espoused by the prince, to take off the blindfolds and have a thorough look at Natural Medicine seems entirely reasonable. After all, its track record continues to look rather benign. The early days of the American Medical Association saw the relentless pursuit of "alternative" healers, they were called quacks and treated like one treats criminals. Times have changed little. Today, there is a worldwide effort to drastically limit the people's access to vitamins and natural medicines. Personally, I would rather treat my asthma attack with a strong cup of brewed coffee than with a modern medicine and its side effects. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jayne LM Donegan, GP & Homoeopath London NW4 1SH jaynelmdonegan@yahoo.com
Send response to journal:
|
Richard Horton says that asthma is a “life threatening condition that can be successfully controlled by the effective use of modern medicines.” This is not, in fact, so. In many cases these medicines may reduce/ suppress the symptoms up to a point, but this is often accompanied by unpleasant and unexpected side effects such as the adrenocortical suppression, reduction of height in children and bruising associated with inhaled steroids (the inhaled route originally being expected to bypass this problem) such that the total prescribable dose keeps being revised downwards, and with severely symptomatic children being given repeated courses of oral steroids. Over reliance of beta blockers used alone is associated with higher death rates, but following the recommendations for the prophylactic use of inhaled steroids leads to the problems listed above. The worst thing that homoepathic remedies can do is not work, which, unless they are prescibed in an innapropriate situation, is an awful lot better than many of the conventional drugs that I can prescibe today which not only don’t work but have lots of nasty side effects. Good homoepaths do not take their patients off their conventional medications – they treat them homoeopathically and as their symptoms improve by objective measures such as peak flow, exercise tolerance etc, they can be gradually weaned off their steroids and beta blockers. I agree that homoepathic remedies are “in essence, tap water - if one still subscribes to the laws of physics and chemistry.” But I would add ’to the laws of physics and chemistry are known today’. People used to think that the earth was flat because they hadn’t circumnavigated it, that Pluto didn’t exist because they couldn’t see it with their telescopes, that the atom was the smallest particle because that was as far as they could split matter at the time. There are plenty of happenings that we all take for granted as existing without being able to measure them. When a patient tells me that they woke up one morning and felt full of energy and the next day, they had no energy – can we measure that ‘energy’? No. Does that mean it doesn’t exist – I don’t think so. It just means that we don’t have the tools to measure it. We are very arrogant in modern medicine ascribing such authority to our little printouts of figures and scans – we think that what we cannot measure isn’t there – but all it means is that we do not have sophisticated enough equipment to do so. As Einstein said, ‘not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. Has Dr Horton ever tried to measure love? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Don Nixdorf, Executive Director 125 - 3751 Shell Rd. Richmond, BC, Canada, V6X 2W2
Send response to journal:
|
The "Prince's wayward wanderings into the public" notes what the public experiences, namely the correct diagnosis and treatment from doctors and therapists of other health professions. The public benefit in terms of recovery and lower direct public health costs and direct personal costs has been repeatedly documented in Royal Commissions including that of New Zealand's 1979 Royal Commission on Chiropractic. The selective use of one health condition to diminish multiple professions, countless successful patient encounters and published documents on safety, outcomes and lower cost is misleading and at best suspect. This monopolistic tactic and other inappropriate actions were part of the conclusion of the 1991 US Supreme Court decision Wilks VS AMA. Every health professional has a minimum standard of care which includes the objective and complete entry of patient care and outcomes in that patient's clinical records. The patient's successful treatment and recovery when provided by other health practitioners is for the most part not being noted in the patient's health record by medical practitioners. This is not only sub standard practice but contributes to the extreme numbers of recorded medical mistakes by continuing to ignore the outcomes of safer and more effective care. The absence of a published report involving 100 or other number of person's successful treatment and outcomes does not mean it did not occur. In fact most medical procedures do not benefit from research and publication, they are just done. A new publication "Squandering Billions - Health Care In Canada" gives evidence of the signifigant savings that can be achieved in dollars and lives through more appropriate use of all health professionals including nurse practitioners, not merely the spending of more money. Competing interests: Executive Director, British Columbia Chiropractic Assn/College of Chiropractors: Co author "Squandering Billions - Health Care in Canada" |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael O'Donnell, Journeyman writer & doctor Loxhill GU8 4BD
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Nehrlich’s love of spade-calling doesn’t excuse his claim that Modern Medicine "is the number one leading cause of death today”. That’s blatantly untrue. The “number one leading cause” is still what it has always been – birth. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Foley, Consultant Anaesthetist Middlesbrough, TS3 4BW, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Nerlich states that "modern medicine is the number one leading cause of death today". Perhaps, since the BMJ is in part a journal of record, he would care to explain this assertion, or is it, like most of the mumbo-jumbo he defends, beyond scientific testing. Hurrah for Dr Horton and the unfashionable practice of telling the Emperor that he is wearing no clothes. Incidentally, if I chose to treat a person dying of severe bronchosopasm with a cup of coffee I would expect my name to be shortly afterwards erased from the Medical Register. Mike Foley Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Balaji Ravichandran, Medical Student Madras Medical College, Chennai, India
Send response to journal:
|
Can somebody please explain to me the logic of an entire tank of water containing all the water on the earth turning blue after the addition of a single drop of ink? Dr. Horton is entirely right in his accusations of homoeopathy being quackery. Because Dr. Horton is bold in his editorials and is strongly opinionated, why should all responders commit themselves to accuse him of scare-mongering? Is it possible to justify the mechanism of operation of homoeopathy which defies all known laws of physics, chemistry and biology? Comparing homoeopathy with such research as on lymphoma is entirely unscientific, the irrationality beyond description. Even if the mechanism of operation of a drug is unknown, it is always possible to put forth a hypothesis, and subsequently address the question through scientific experimentation. Has there been any valid hypothesis which stood the test of science? Remember the 'memory of water' (which by the way, lasts only for a few femtoseconds) fiasco? In response to Dr. Donegan, it is even possible to measure love scientifically. For starters, I'd advise them to watch the BBC's 'The Human Body' series. Any amount of clinical trials and meta-analyses claiming to attest to homoeopathy's efficacy (notwithstanding the increased likelyhood of bias) are bound to be rejected by scientific community, unless homoeopathy is founded on rational scientific terms. That homoeopathy was founded entirely in the realms of faith and not in the realms of science is obvious if one analyses the founding 'principles' of homoeopathy. Perhaps, the responders should question their own adequacy of knowledge about homoeopathy (I would refer the readers to Hahnemann's own books) before attempting to mount a defence. One final word... A true scientist never supposes facts. He relies on experimentation and irrefutable proof. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Theo Fenton, Consultant Paediatrician Mayday Hospital, Croydon CR7 7YE
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Donegan says that "Over reliance on beta blockers used alone is associated with higher death rates, but following the recommendations for the prophylactic use of inhaled steroids leads to the problems listed above".
Nobody relies on beta blockers for asthma. Over-reliance on short-acting beta-2 agonists (and inadequate use of steroids for more severe disease) is indeed dangerous. But which "recommendations" is she referring to as causing the problems or "unexpected side-effects" which she, er, expects? The British Thoracic Society recommendations include long-acting beta-2 agonists and leukotriene receptor agonists in more severely affected patients. But not homoeopathy, and not beta blockers. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roberta Smith, Psychiatric patient Home
Send response to journal:
|
Don't underestimate the power of the mind in healing illness, or natural remedies, sometimes called 'old wives tales'. All experienced doctors will have no doubt dished out the odd placebo at one time or another and discovered that for some people, it works. The brain itself is actually being studied as a science. That department of medicine is called 'Psychiatry'. I find aromatherapy very helpful, and some call this a science. Tea tree oil in particular has been proven to boost the immune system, and acts firstly to prevent infection, and in the unfortunate event an of infection, it helps to fight it off more quickly. It is a particulary effective anti-viral agent for the preventation and treatment of influenza, as is oil of Thyme. These oils are never ingested, like a pill, but allowed to absorb into the body, either in vapour form or onto the skin. In the same way that most infections are caught, aromatherapy oils enter the body in a similar way, through the skin. Natures favourite antibiotic is eucalyptus oil, which is found in 'Vicks vaporub'. In my opinion, I believe that any of the oils listed above are actually strong enough to treat anti-biotic resistant superbugs. And, in fact,amazingly, most medicines (Aspirin for example) are actually plant based. It's just that we have these things called 'pharmaceutical companies' which chemically refine them, and sell them for lots of money, which we all pay for in our taxes. Homeopathy works on the same principle as a vaccination, by introducing a little of the 'virus' into the body and to create an immune system response. Vaccinations are a proven 'science' and are mostly effective, but all doctors will know that a small amount of people do actually develop the full blown illness when given certain vaccinations. There is no evidence any of my claims are true, other than the fact that some of these treatments have worked for me. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Theo Fenton, Consultant Paediatrician Mayday Hospital, Croydon CR7 7YE
Send response to journal:
|
Typing errors are contagious. The BTS recommend leukotriene receptor antagonists, not agonists. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jayne LM Donegan, GP & Homoepath London NW4
Send response to journal:
|
Sorry, my error, I meant beta agonists Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
F. Ambrosi, Web credibility specialist Brescia, Italy - 25100
Send response to journal:
|
Dr. Horton wrote; "homeopathic remedies - in essence, tap water (if one still subscribes to the laws of physics and chemistry)". This is simply not true so all of his deduction is invalid. Homeopathic remedies are - chemically talking - tap water. This is true. The Avogadro number tells us that after lots of diluition processes it is statistically unlikely to find solute moleculas. But homeopathic remedies have not the same phisical proprierties of the simple tap water. This is simply false. Let me explain this with an example: if you have 1 Kg of liquid water and 1 Kg of solid water (ice) chemically they are both water and simply water. But the phisical properties are different. Try to throw on a person head the first or the second 1 Kg of water and tell me the results. Well, homeopathic remedies have particular phisical properties, for example the fusion temperatures and electrical conducibility are significatively different (respectevely < 100° C and > 0). There are lot of - repeatable - studies on these topics. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew D Lawson, Consultant In Pain Medicine OX107DA
Send response to journal:
|
I find it difficult to imagine this debate having much impact without the influence of the POW and his known belief in Homeopathy. Aside from the issue of royal influence ( albeit of high moral intention ) on public policy there seem to be two main arguments against more usage of homeopathy. Firstly the findings of the NHS centre for dissemination and reviews from the university of York which concluded in Effective Healthcare in 2002 that " There is currently insufficient evidence of effectiveness either to reccomend homeopathy as a treatment for any specific treatment or to warrant significant changes in the currentprovision...". If there has been no major study since then that view must stand. Secondly the mechanism described for the effect of homoeopathy is an invention and has never been proven by any kind of rational science, after all if you told your patients that their cytotoxics would not work if they were touched by your or their hand and had to go direct from the bottle to their mouth they would quite rightly think you had taken leave of your senses! That being said if dishing out some sugar pills , taking a long history and being empathetic helps people and makes the feel better then it should not be a problem unless it stops people seeking treatment for what one might call diseases as opposed to illness. I find it difficult to believe that, despite the medical industrial complex so loved of some commentators , if homeopathy were truely as effective as people say it would have been pushed into the NHS long ago. After all it costs practically nothing and there is no risk of an adverse reaction. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Donald E. J. Pyle, Engineer 312 N. Milstead, Wichita, Kansas 67212 USA
Send response to journal:
|
It is possible to explain the mechanism of treating diseases via highly dilute substances (homoeopathy?). My hypothesis adheres to the laws of physics and chemistry relating to feedback systems and it recommends supplementation with very low quantities of a nutrient. The explanation may violate some biologist concepts of feedback loops, but then so does the entire engineering specialty of control systems. Applications of the feedback systems concepts have significantly changed things over the past few decades. My article is titled “The multiple feedback loop hypothesis of chronic diseases” and it is available at Medical Hypothesis (2005) vol. 64 pages 408-413. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tim M Reynolds, Consultant Chemical Pathologist Queen's Hospital, Burton-on-Trent, DE13 0RB
Send response to journal:
|
Homeopathy relies on diluting the active principle in pure water until its strength is enhanced by dilution to less than Avogadro's number. Thus, the karmic resonance of the active agent must somehow be held within the water that is adsorbed into the homeopathic tablet and transferred to the tablet when the water evaporates. How do they get the pure water that has no resonances collected from its earlier experiences? What are the pure resonance-free tablets manufactured from? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard G Fiddian-Green, None None
Send response to journal:
|
Among low-risk patients (RCRI 1) patients having major noncardiac surgery beta-blockers therapy are associated with no benefit and possible harm, whereas for higher-risk patients (RCRI 2), therapy is associated with reduced risk of death, with the benefit increasing with increasing baseline risk [RCRI= Revised Cardiac Risk Index](1). In my studies of hormonal release and action I have observed a similar effect finding a linear correlation between the effect and the base rate which cuts the x-axis just before zero. As this intercept has been significiantly different from zero I have concluded that secretin, for example, may be a stimulus of gastrin release at low basal rates of gastrin release in healthy subjects even though it might be an inhibitor of stimulated gastrin release (2). These observation raise the possibility that many prospective randomised studies are confounded by these opposing effects. The opposing effects might even occur in the same organ (3). Might therefore many drugs have opposing effects in diseased and healthy organs in the same individual. Might in addition very low doses have opposing effects to higher doses? There are very serious limitations in the relative values currently ascribed to different levels of evidence in clinical studies. Richard Horton and other editors should acknowledge that many physiologists place higher value in a single "good experiment" than in the statistical analysis of all similar experients. By the same token many clinicians place high value in case histories ..their clinical experience. To devalue this evidence and dismiss homeopathy as quackery because the level of evidence is judged inadequate may conceal important clinical truths. 1. Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Mamidi DK, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Perioperative beta-blocker therapy and mortality after major noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2005;353:349-61. 2. Eckhauser FE, Vinik AI, McLeod M, Porter-Fink V, Fiddian-Green RG. Secretin, a stimulus for duodenal and pancreatic "gastrin" release: possible pathogenetic significance in Zollinger-Ellison (ZE) syndrome. J Surg Res. 1980 Apr;28(4):356-66. 3. Richard G Fiddian-Green The risk of shooting stressed myocytes with beta blockers, pinacidil and glibenclamide. http://www.heartjnl.com/cgi/eletters/90/4/425#456, 9 Sep 2004 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Franco Ambrosi, Web Credibility specialist Brescia, Italy - 25100
Send response to journal:
|
Let me show what I mean with some examples: If you take pure water and measure the thermoluminescence, you'll find no particular relevance. Diluting in it a solute and measuring the thermoluminescence again it was found that "beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially"[1]. The thermoluminescence property of the solute is conserved. Similar results were obtained in thermodynamic studies, for example measuring the amount of heat emanating from two recursively diluted and hard shaken solutions: the first was plain double-distilled water and the second was double-distilled water in which a substance was placed. After every dilution (for a total of 30) the measures were taken and compared. It was found that " 92% of the test solutions with the added acid or base substance had higher than expected heat emanating from them"[2]. I think water is not suggestible to the placebo effect. But there are not only lab studies stating the difference between simple water and "homeopathic water", it was created a theoretical model of diluted and shaked solutions, the "computer experiments suggested that the repeated process of potentiation [note: dilution and shaking] eventually results in a specific metastable state of the pure solvent"[3]. These studies suggest that extremely diluted solutions are not simply distilled water: they have different physical properties[4]. I hope the debate on "homeopathic water is not simple water" will soon be shifted to higher levels: "homeopathic water is not simple water. Is it effective in medicine?" References: [1] L. Rey, "Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride", Physica A, 323 (2003): 67-74. [2] V. Elia, M. Niccoli, "Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions", Annals NY Acad Sci, 827 (1999): 241-248. [3] KW. Kratky, "Homeopathy and structure of water: a physical model", Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd, 11 (2004): 24-32 [4] V. Elia, M. Niccoli, "Physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions", Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 75 (2004): 815-836 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Simon J Baker, Veterinary Surgeon House and Jackson Veterinary Surgeons, Blackmore, Essex, CM4 0LE
Send response to journal:
|
"Has Dr Horton ever tried to measure love? " Oh, yes. Argument by false analogy. A favourite ploy of the advocates of homeopathy. Let us suppose that homeopathic remedies "loved" the patients better and the tablets were just jam-packed full of that "love". Dr. Donegan is right that science might have a tough time quantifying that. What it does not have a tough time doing is measuring the effects of these potentially loved-up tablets on patients. Homeopathy consistently fails to perform better than placebo in properly-controlled trials, so we have no real need to speculate on any bizarre properties that the tablets might have. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Simon J Baker, Veterinary Surgeon House and Jackson Veterinary Surgeons, Blackmore, Essex, CM4 0LE
Send response to journal:
|
" These studies suggest that extremely diluted solutions are not simply distilled water: they have different physical properties[4]." They might. The studies await independent replication especially to rule out the possibility that contaminants influenced the results of what are quite temperamental assay methods. However, given that many remedies are given as sugar tablets after the magically enhanced water has been evaporated off them; and given that homeopaths believe in "grafting", the ability of one tablet to magically empower a bottle full of plain tablets or, indeed, tablets in an adjacent bottle; and given that there is no way for the methods of homeopathic pharmacy to instruct a remedy tablet which of the myriad chemicals dissolved in water or present in reagent sugar stocks is the one that matters to the patient; these phsyicochemical studies have very little bearing on the validity of homeopathy itself. An interesting sidenote is the funding of such studies by homeopathic pharmacies. If reported results are positive then they are available to be trumpeted as a "proof" of homeopathy, but they also contain the element of plausible deniability, so that negative findings can be dismissed as not really bearing on the heart of the matter "I hope the debate on "homeopathic water is not simple water" will soon be shifted to higher levels: "homeopathic water is not simple water. Is it effective in medicine?" " What you may hope for and what is appropriate are rather different things. Homeopathy fails to beat placebo when proper controls are applied. So the question of mechanism does not apply. Some homeopaths complain about the methods of controlled trials and try to excuse their field from such scrutiny. This is nonsense, but it is nonetheless convenient in confronting this obtuseness to have available a different line of argument and to remember that homeopathy is riddled with so many internal inconsistencies that even in its own terms the claims of homempaths cannot be taken at face value. For, example you will find homeopaths who claim that airport X-ray scanners completely inactivate remedies or coffee or alcohol will prevent the remedies working while others say there is no problem. In each case, both groups continue to claim success with their remedies, but at least one must be wrong. This serves to highlight the point that it is irrational to reference themselves against daily clinical practice as if it gives them access to a truth that is inaccessible to scientific study. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Morrell, Hon Research Associate, History of Medicine Staffordshire University, UK
Send response to journal:
|
It is an ancient British custom for some who have given public service to receive honours. Examples in the medical field include Sir William Arbuthnot Lane, Sir Liam Donaldson and Lord Winston. One therefore imagines that the hapless Richard Horton [1] has not enhanced his own chances of getting a knighthood by launching such an intemperate assault upon the future King and life-long homeopathy supporter, the Prince of Wales, or to give him his full title: Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Lord of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland and Earl of Chester [2]. And it is especially ironic for Horton when one compares his now dire fortunes with those of the homeopathic Physician Royal, Dr Peter Fisher, the Queen's private physician and head of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, whose prospects seem correspondingly much rosier when it comes to the question of receiving public honours. Several of his illustrious predecessors did indeed receive knighthoods, such as Sir John Weir (1879-1971), once the Queen's physician, who "was reputedly Physician Royal to six monarchs: George V (1865-1936), Edward VIII (1894-1972), George VI (1895-1952), Elizabeth II, King Gustav V of Sweden (1858-1950) and King Haakon VII of Norway (1872- 1957). The latter's wife, Princess Maud [1869-1938), was the youngest daughter of King Edward VII." [3] Not only have the British royals been ardent supporters of homeopathy for five generations, but homeopathy has traditionally enjoyed very widespread support in all Europe's royal houses and with aristocrats of all types over the same period. Therefore, its vociferous detractors ought to reflect a little more carefully on the very slender likelihood that its therapeutic successes and its burgeoning public popularity--what Horton dismisses as "credulous public," [1]--are grounded solely in misplaced faith, belief, irrationality, 'placebo effect' or even what Horton curiously calls "wayward meanderings into the recesses of medievalism." [1] Uncomfortably for Horton's case, many cherished heroes and pioneers of modern science: Galileo, Newton, Sydenham, Harvey, Boyle, Bacon, etc, lived in "the recesses of medievalism," [1] breathed its very air and subscribed to its Christian doctrines. Critics of homeopathy like Horton have rarely ever studied it or used its remedies for themselves. They tend to speak solely from the 'authority' of an armchair theoretical position and are usually innately opposed to it in principle because of their emotional commitment to scientific materialism, a zealous belief system which demands its vigorous condemnation even if it works; regardless of its success, they feel compelled to condemn it at every opportunity because it seems to contradict their precious and entrenched belief of how they think the world is. All talk of mechanisms is an inconsequential side-issue only of interest to these armchair detractors. Regardless of whether or how the action of homeopathic drugs might be explained by the so-called "laws of physics and chemistry," [1] it is periodically worth reminding ourselves that such 'laws of nature' are not cast in stone, but are revisable human interpretations of events observed in the world. If homeopathy works, then it is these 'laws' that humbly need some adjustment, to bring them closer into line with the way the world is, and not by arrogantly trying to bring the world into line with the cherished theories of science zealots who peddle a worrying breed of dogmatic absolutism for such 'laws of nature.' How many allopathic 'cures' conform to known chemical mechanisms? There is much in medicine that simply works, the mechanism eventually being worked out much later. The main thrust of the report, that CAM could effectively make people healthier and reduce NHS costs, is correct and should carry far more weight with the medical profession than exaggerating any epistemological disparities between these therapies and scientific medicine. We know that certain royals have acquired a reputation for doing and saying silly, rude or inept things in public. Examples include Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform to a party close to the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, [4] and Prince Philip's numerous, well-documented gaffes about Chinese, Indians, sports weapons, Hungarians, the Scottish love of drink, the Lockerbie aircrash, Canadians, the cooking skills of British women, his scepticism of the benefits of stress counselling, the singing abilities of Tom Jones and Adam Faith, [5] and even the art of playing bowls. [6] So, while it is very heartening to see that it is not only royals who publicly shoot themselves in the foot occasionally, but also some prominent doctors, play-acting as scientists, but it is probably true that royals can escape the professional consequences of making these gaffes more easily than doctors. Sources [1] Richard Horton, Pandering to the Prince, BMJ e-letter, 7 October 2005 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/331/7520/795-a#118608 [2] Profile of Prince Charles: http://www.eonline.com/On/Royalty/Profiles/charles.html [3] P Morrell, A History of Homeopathy in Britain, 2001 http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/articles/ukhomhistory.shtml [4] Charles To Harry: Visit Auschwitz, LONDON, Jan. 14, 2005 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/earlyshow/main666570.shtml [5] Prince Philip's gaffes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/416992.stm [6] Nick Webster, Philip in bowls blunder, Manchester News, Saturday, 27th July 2002 http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/14/14545_philip_in_bowls_blunder.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Eddie Vos, maintains health-heart.org Sutton (Qc) Canada J0E 2K0
Send response to journal:
|
Dr. Nehrlich was taken to task by anaesthetist Dr. Foley
for his statement that 'modern medicine' would be the number one cause
of death in the world today. It is really academic if such is number
1 or 3, one can argue either point, as JAMA,
here, suggests that drug deaths in U.S. hospitals alone are mortality
cause number 4, 5 or 6 (1).
Based on this analysis: Is
U.S. health really the best in the world?, one would argue that
in the U.S. it is the number 3 cause and this regarding basically hospital
care alone:
That would be the third leading cause of deaths after cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Not easily quantifiable is the role of 'modern medicine' in not preventing deaths from preventable nutritional and infectious diseases world wide, and in non-hospital related settings. While I hope to have an anaesthetist like Dr. Foley over my bedside if ever I need a hip joint replacement, I'd much prefer a 'complementary medicine man' who would have helped me prevent needing one in the first place through the use of antiinflammatory C20:3n3 containing fish oil and by the judicious use of bone and cartilage building nutrients and vitamin D. I'd guess Dr. Foley would agree that more patients' last face they ever see belongs to an anaesthetist rather than of a physician practicing complementary and preventive medicine (CAPM) and thus maybe Prince Charles and Dr. Nehrlich have an important message after all. 1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5. 2. Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA. 2000;284:483-485. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Simon J Baker, Veterinary Surgeon House and Jackson Veterinary Surgeons, Blackmore, Essex, CM4 0LE
Send response to journal:
|
" Therefore, its vociferous detractors ought to reflect a little more carefully on the very slender likelihood that its therapeutic successes and its burgeoning public popularity--what Horton dismisses as "credulous public," [1]--are grounded solely in misplaced faith, belief, irrationality, 'placebo effect' or even what Horton curiously calls "wayward meanderings into the recesses of medievalism." [1] Uncomfortably for Horton's case, many cherished heroes and pioneers of modern science: Galileo, Newton, Sydenham, Harvey, Boyle, Bacon, etc, lived in "the recesses of medievalism," [1] breathed its very air and subscribed to its Christian doctrines." The only problem for Mr Morrell is that when "misplaced faith, belief, irrationality, 'placebo effect'" are excluded there is nothing left. It is indeed the case that the authorities he cites "lived in "the recesses of medievalism"", which is why their views on medicine ahould not be taken at face value. The ability to accurately discern causal relations in medical therapies was to wait for a later century. "Critics of homeopathy like Horton have rarely ever studied it or used its remedies for themselves." "Try it for yourself" is often the cry of the homeopath in these debates. One wonders why they can't see this to be logically invalid. Nonetheless a number of us have tried their remedies and found nothing remarkable in the experience. The small number of properly controlled "provings" where volunteers report effects after taking a remedy also tend to find nothing remarkable. Remarkable things are certainly reported in traditional homeopathic provings but the participants are aware of what they are taking and why. Unfortunately in my career I have come across a number of instances where nothing remarkable also happened to the disease being suffered by animals under the supposed care of a homeopath. In several instances, sadly the homepath was simultaneously claiming a great success for homeopathy. So, Mr Morrel will have to excuse me if I choose to pay little heed to their stories of clinical success. "They...are usually innately opposed to it in principle because of their emotional commitment to scientific materialism, a zealous belief system which demands its vigorous condemnation even if it works" For myself, I would have no problem with homeopathy if it did indeed work. Science and medicine would simply enlarge to absorb that datum. What receives my vigorous condemnation is inefficacy paraded as success, wilful disregard of contrary evidence and a pathological reluctance to reconsider basic assumptions. An honest approach would include a willingness to address the various fatal errors and internal inconsistencies from which homeopathy suffers. That honesty would then perforce extend to reconsidering their belief. Sadly I am yet to find a homeopath in debate who will face up to these problems. "How many allopathic 'cures' conform to known chemical mechanisms?" Um, let's think about this one. How about, most of them? "There is much in medicine that simply works, the mechanism eventually being worked out much later." That is a fair point. Homeopathy does not work, so we need not worry about its mechanisms. "exaggerating any epistemological disparities between these therapies and scientific medicine." The epistemological disparity is between medicine that knows how to determine whether it works and medicine that cannot see beyond first- person anecdotal account. Many of homeopathy's proponents seem unable to see the truth about homeopathy because homeopathy is a philosophy that has been finely tuned over 200 years to render its adherents incapable of discerning the truth for themselves. This problem is built into the structure of the homeopathic process. Literally any outcome for the patient is used as confirmation of homeopathy's truth. Recovery obviously means the remedy worked. A lack of response merely dictates more prolonged treatment or a change of remedy. More bizarrely, a deterioration is called an "aggravation" and is specifically regarded as a sure sign the remedy is having the desired effect. Homeopathy is not a system of medicine, but a set of excuses. It does not provide successful treatment but a set of narrative tools to accompany the natural history of the disease. Most of a homeopath's practice can be found among patients with self- limiting trivial problems or chronically relapsing conditions both of which are well-suited to an approach that permits the therapist to stand by and take the credit for any recovery or even a temporary amelioration. In addition, when homeopathy is used to "complement" conventional medicine I have seen a depressingly frequent tendency to ascribe any improvements to homeopathy. It is a shame is that homeopathy's vociferous champions cannot see that these arguments are self-evident. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich, Private Practice Bribie Island, Australia 4507
Send response to journal:
|
Dr. Foley made an error in referring to the treatment of a patient dying from bronchospasm. Perhaps he could explain this drastic mis-reading of my comment as well as picture himself or me administering coffee in such a situation. A Google search will bring to light sufficiently disturbing information on my assertion as to what is the number one cause of death. Assuming that we see and are told about the majority of untoward events resulting from medical intervention the facts are still there, for all to see. I think you would agree that we don't. One reference to look at is a recent paper as follows: Shocking statistical evidence is cited by Gary Null PhD, Caroly Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD and Dorothy Smith PhD in their recent paper Death by Medicine - October 2003, released by the Nutrition Institute of America." "A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251. (1) According to one source, drug use alone is the 4th to 6th cause of death (2) Another quote from the prairies of Canada: "As I said, it does not matter if 'modern medicine' is cause 1 or 6 of deaths, and 1 dead per 5 minutes in U.S. hospitals by drugs is too many." (3) 'nuff said. P.S.: Yes, Dr. O'Donnell is correct and I do appreciate his sense of humour. References: 1 The Nutrition Institute of America. Deadly Medical Mistakes Exposed. October 28, 2003 2 http://www.ncbi.nml.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9555760&dopt=Abstract 3 Eddie Vos, Heart Health, personal communication Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph C Watine, Consultant, Laboratory Medicine Hôpital de Rodez, France
Send response to journal:
|
Simon J Baker seems to believe that most allopathic “cures” conform to known chemical mechanisms [1]. One of the easiest way to try and make Simon J Baker reflect a little bit more on his belief, could perhaps consist of reminding him that almost all currently used drugs can have side-effects of unknown (or not completely known) mechanisms. [1] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/331/7520/795-a#119537 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Morag G Kerr, Veterinary clinical pathologist Southwater, RH13 9RT
Send response to journal:
|
Peter Morell's approach seems to be to accuse those of us who prefer evidence and reason of being zealous adherents of a dogmatic belief system, and emotionally addicted to denouncing any contradiction to these beliefs - as nice an example of the pot calling the chromium teapot black as one could possibly wish for. However, this time he seems to have found a new bogey-man with which to beat the emotional and ignorant EBM supporters. Gosh, we mustn't bad- mouth homoeopathy because - wait for it - this will seriously harm our chances of getting a gong from HRH!! News flash, Mr. Morrell. Some of us are not in the slightest bit interested in gongs and baubles, which in any case are no yardstick of credibility. Perhaps we are more interested in objective truth. As regards the objective truth of homoeopathy, it seems to me that there are two aspects, indeed two quite separate questions. First, we may ask whether the entire homoeopathic "experience" is beneficial to patients. The case-taking, the sympathy, the ego-massage and all the trimmings. It may well be the case that (in human medicine) this is so. Dr. Kathy Ryan in a previous thread of a similar nature referred to the concept of the "therapeutic consultation", and the potential of this experience to yield psychological benefits should not be ignored. However, the second question is the more rigorous one. Do homoeopathic remedies have any therapeutic or even physiological effect in themselves? This is the sticking point of the sceptics, and rightly so. For all the protestations of Mr. Ambrosi regarding the Rey study and related publications, it remains the case that there is no way whatsoever to distinguish a potentised homoeopathic remedy from the stock solvent or carrier material, either in vivo or in vitro. At the risk or re-opening old wounds, I remind Mr. Ambrosi that the JREF million dollar prize, available these twenty years to anyone who can demonstrate this feat repeatedly and reliably, still remains unclaimed. The fact is that there is nothing in these remedies - no structured water, no thermoluminescent emissions, no quantum energies, nothing to distinguish them from plain old water/alcohol and sugar pills. The number of ways contrived by homoeopathy proponents to take evidence of the benefits of the therapeutic consultation and twist this into alleged evidence for a physiological effect of the magic sugar pills never ceases to amaze me. However, one would hope that medical publications and government reports would be more honest. If indeed the case-taking ritual provided by homoeopaths offers cost-effective benefits, then we should strive to ascertain how best these might be delivered. However, what about the related matter of lying to the patients about the medical benefits of the sugar pills? Is this a necessary component of the process? And if it is, does the psychological benefit of the therapeutic consultation justify lying to one's patient? This is the real crux of the matter, and ought to be tackled head-on, not concealed behind mealy-mouthed platitudes about patient satisfaction and "credible ways forward". Given that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that the homoeopathic ritual has any effect other than a psychological one, is it possible to achieve this effect without the incorporation of placebo? Or does the medical profession wish to endorse the dispensing of placebos, with fraudulent claims of efficacy, and if so how may this approach be most effectively delivered? As a veterinary surgeon, I wish most fervently that the medical Powers the Be would come clean on this one, and cease this charade of supporting homoeopathy and other irrational methods as if there was indeed some physiological efficacy present. Why? Because no matter how much psychological support the homoeopathic ritual may provide to a pet owner, this does precisely nothing for the unfortunate animal concerned. Persuading a human patient that he feels better "in himself" arguably does help, even if it's "only in the mind". However, applying rose-coloured glasses to an animal owner is simply an affront to animal welfare. The spectacle of the veterinary homoeopath assuring his client that the animal is improving, when objectively this is simply not the case, or even hailing a deterioration as "good news" because this "aggravation" shows that the remedy is working, is simply sickening. The fact that the owners of the animals concerned are so ready to fall for this claptrap should be an object lesson for us all. Sadly, attempts to combat the animal abuse that is veterinary homoeopathy are all too easily countered by reference to the apparently "respectable" position of homoeopathy within human medicine, and the apparent endorsement by the medical establishment. Perhaps even worse, adherents of "organic" farming are able to promote homoeopathy as an alternative to proven safe and effective veterinary medicines in organic herds and flocks, thus depriving animals of effective healthcare in the name of dogma and so-called "nature". If the medical profession wishes to indulge itself in the provision of psychological support by placebo administration, then let it do so - but let it do so openly, without hiding behind hints of scientifically impossible (indeed magical) effects. Only then will innocent animal patients be safe from the consequences of an approach which addresses only the owner's ego, and not the patient's suffering. Competing interests: Veterinary surgeon who is sickened by the treatment of animals with content-free sugar pills |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Onisillos Sekkides, Medical Editor London, NW1
Send response to journal:
|
Sadly, this is one of the subjects that the rational world must now retreat from. The faithful will never be convinced, because they have a completely different world view. The only option now is for real medicine to move on and leave the homeopaths to their metaphysical musings. You'll never convince them. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Simon J Baker, Veterinary Surgeon House and Jackson Veterinary Surgeons, Blackmore, Essex, CM4 0LE
Send response to journal:
|
I'm sorry to say, M. Watine, that your point eludes me. Drugs are chemicals and work chemically and you'll have a tough time finding a drug with no side effects. It seems you are arguing against a straw man. But quite what you are trying to prove by saying "almost all currently used drugs can have side-effects of unknown...mechanisms." I have no idea. If you are wishing to say that every mechanism of all drug side effects have not been completely elucidated then I would agree, but regard the point as irrelevant. If you are wishing to imply a contrasting claim that homeopathic remedies have no side effects then I would agree because they have no main effect either. But I am not a homeopath. However, if homeopathy were true then so would "aggravations". One of homeopathy's open secrets is the claim that when things get worse, i.e. the patient's sufferings increase, it is because the remedy is working. On a connected subject, the leading UK homeopathic "prover" Jeremy Sherr says; "However it is true that a small number of provers do not emerge unscathed. Usually these sufferings do not last long, but on rare occasions I have known problems to last for months or even years" From "The Dynamics and Methodology of Homoeopathic Provings" Fortunately there is no evidence to support his assertion, but homeopaths believe it. When one thinks of the shock-horror expressed by the alt. med. community at the mere thought that real medicines are not 100% safe the blithe disregard with which healthy people can apparently be caused long term damage in the interests of "proving" a homeopathic remedy is wonder to behold. Perhaps M. Watine will wish to make his point clearer, but if he does he might also wish to consider the harm that homeopaths claim their own remedies can do. Competing interests: None declared |
|||