‘… This website responds to the criticisms of homeopathy made on the Sense About Science website. These criticisms are not valid, and it is unfortunate that a website presenting itself as scientific and sensible can be so unscientific, and so insensible of its subject. The website is criticising nothing but its own mistaken understanding of homeopathy, not homeopathy itself. The same applies to theNightingale Collaboration website. (Some parts of the account of homeopathy given on that website are exactly the same. Is similarity on homeopathy acceptable in small doses?)…’
Archive for category Defend Homeopathy!
With thanks to http://theconversation.edu.au/complementary-vs-western-medicine-both-have-a-role-in-universities-8232 by Paul Komesaroff, Professor of Medicine, Monash University 19 Jul, 2012 (Paul Komesaroff’s comment piece, Medicine and science must oppose intolerance and censorship, is published in today’s Medical Journal of Australia. Paul Komesaroff does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/paul-komesaroff-1137).
From http://theconversation.edu.au/complementary-vs-western-medicine-both-have-a-role-in-universities-8232 ‘… Medicine has long been the subject of vigorous debate about the control of social resources. The formation of modern medicine in the mid-19th century was itself the result of a century long fight for legitimacy among many contending groups.
At that time, those who won out – the physicians, the surgeons and those who prepared and sold medicines – had no more evidence to support them than those they defeated. They succeeded on the basis of politics, not of evidence. Since then, western medicine has grown into a key social institution supported by an elaborate scientific infrastructure. But the battle to defend its status, authority and access to wealth continues unabated. Read the rest of this entry »
With thanks to Edzard Ernst’s own blog site http://edzardernst.com/2013/
With thanks to H:M21 website: In April 2010 the Deutscher Zentralverein homoeopathischer Aerzte (German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians) published an interview with Professor Edzard Ernst in its newsletter.
In this interview Ernst claims that he “acquired the prerequisites” to be able to add ‘homeopathy’ to his medical title “but never applied for the title”. In fact, a crucial ‘prerequisite’ in Germany, where homeopathy is regulated, is to have passed an exam at the relevant regional branch of the German Landesaerztekammer (medical council), and Ernst never did this. As the interviewer points out: “So is it correct that you did not acquire the additional medical title ‘Homeopathy’ but took further medical education courses in homeopathy? If yes, which ones?
Ernst: “I never completed any courses.”
In short, it appears that the leading ‘authority’ on homeopathy, and perhaps its most referenced critic, has no qualifications in homeopathy.
With thanks to the Deccan Chronicle 29.6.11:
The rivalry between allopathy and homeopathy has now assumed a filmy turn. A registered pharmacist has filed a public interest litigation in the Kerala High Court seeking to ban Malayalam movie Kana Kombathu saying it was creating an unnecessary scare about allopathy medicines. The petitioner, Mr Karakkad Rajasekharan Nair, said the film created the impression that even popping a paracetamol pill will give you deadly diseases in the long run.
“Its dialogues are aimed at portraying modern medical science as a demonic phenomenon and pharmacists and doctors as agents of imperialism,” he said. “The film says that allopaths are out to kill people.” Mr T.M. Subasah, the petitioner’s advocate, said the film, scripted by Madhu Muttom of Manichaitrathazhu fame, ended with the heroes triggering an explosion destroying a pharmaceutical factory. “The character played by Manoj K. Jayan then says that our society does not need allopathy and can survive with traditional medicines,” said Mr Subash.
The advocate added that on inquiry, he found that Kana Kombathu was produced by a homeopathy doctor who was also involved in running a homeo medicine firm. Mr Subhash said that the PIL had been filed before the HC Chief Justice citing section 5 of the 1952 Cinematography Act relating to defamation. The film, directed by newcomer Mahadevan, stars Mythili, Biju Menon, Nedumudi Venu, Suraj Venjarammoodu and cricketer Sreesanth’s brother Deepu along with newcomers.
The NHS is right to fund homoeopathy. S Clare Stanford, reader in experimental psychopharmacology, Department of Neuroscience, Physiology, and Pharmacology, University College London. email@example.com. BMJ 2011; 342:d2642 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2642 (Published 4 May 2011)
The campaign to expel homeopathy from the NHS continues unabated despite a position statement from the Department of Health: “We believe in patients being able to make informed choices about their treatment, and in a clinician being able to prescribe the treatment they feel most appropriate … which includes … homeopathy.”
To put this skirmish into perspective, the NHS spends about £4m (€4.5m; $6.6m) a year on homeopathic prescriptions, which is peanuts. Even if subsidiary costs are rolled in, this battle is clearly more about winning a scientific argument, and protecting patients from themselves, than preserving NHS coffers. Read the rest of this entry »
The Truth? See http://www.homeopathyevidencecheck.org/
The Department of Health will not be withdrawing funding for homeopathy on the NHS, nor will the licensing of homeopathic products be stopped. Decisions on the provision and funding of any treatment will remain the responsibility of the NHS locally.
A patient who wants homeopathic treatment on the NHS should speak to his or her GP. If the GP is satisfied this would be the most appropriate and effective treatment then, subject to any local commissioning policies, he or she can refer them to a practitioner or one of the NHS homeopathic hospitals.
In deciding whether homeopathy is appropriate for a patient, the treating clinician would be expected to take into account safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as the availability of suitably qualified and regulated practitioners. The Department of Health would not intervene in such decisions.
The Department’s response to the Science and Technology Committee report explains the reasons behind its decisions in more detail. The response can be found on clicking on the following link: