Does Homeopathy put lives at risk with claims that cannot be justified?
BA(Hons) Dip Ed, DO, DIHom, FBIH, MMSM(MT)
Such charges have been common in the ongoing attack on homeopathy in the last year or so let us consider the following facts:
- There is a body of qualified doctors who are homeopaths
- The majority of those who seek homeopathy have already been screened by their GP and remain under GP scrutiny with homeopathy as a complementary therapy.
- Non medically qualified homeopaths are generally well able to pick up warning signs in the few that have not been screened, and, via the patient’s G.P., utilise the tests that are available.
- From within the orthodox establishment sound randomised double-blind placebo controlled trials do exist, supporting the homeopathic approach e.g.
a) From the Department of Cancer Biology at The University of Texas we learn that Ruta 6 was used in the treatment of brain tumours. Out of 15 patients seven had gliomas and six showed complete regression of the tumours. (May 2003)
b) Christopher Day the homeopathic vet who graduated at Cambridge in 1972 conducted trials on cows with mastitis. Two groups of 40 cows each were treated and only the pharmacist knew the placebo. When the results were checked only one case of mastitis had occurred in the treated herd but there were 19 in the untreated group. As a sequel the farmer interviewed said he saved £1,000 per year by using 5ml a month of homeopathic remedy for his herd. Previously he averaged 30 – 40 cases of mastitis per annum but using homeopathy the average was 6..
c) In 1983 Dr D Reilly at Glasgow did a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled (RDBPC) trial with 30 patients who were treated for hay fever with mixed pollens in homeopathic potency. This was repeated 1 year later with 150 patients and independent assessors. Results showed 15% were better with homeopathy than any other hay fever treatment.
This information may well help in forming an honest answer to this question.
Last changed: Apr 07 2009 at 11:00 AM