Tuesday, 20 September 2011

Homeopathy - a case of Alzheimer's Disease

This is a case sent in by Sanket Taldevkar - for which many thanks. It concerns a patient with Alzheimer’s disease. Obviously, this disease is now running, out of control, at epidemic levels, and perhaps homeopathy does not see, or treat, as many people with this awful disease as it should. After all, most people with Alzheimer's don't seek treatment for themselves; and too often it is dismissed as being a 'disease of old age', for which nothing can be done. This case suggests otherwise.

Name: XYZ. Age: 59/ Female

Patient was brought to clinic by relatives; pt was very quiet, no eye to eye contact constantly looking down with no expression on her face

Information from her son : pt is not able to remember anything since last two years, she does not recollects the last event, always sits quietly, don’t like to mix with people, don’t like to talk with any one. One must ask several times to her for simple thing then after some time she hardly gives any response, does not ask anything for her own, she didn’t ask for food or water to any one since last three months, since last two months she doesn’t realize that she passed urine or stool.

Pathological history:
1] 5 year back there was pain and swelling in her right knee aspiration was done and some steroidal preparations was injected in knee
2] After one year she was diagnosed as HYPERTENSIVE patient [still on anti-hypertensive medicine]
3] Since one year she develops ALZHEIMER’S symptoms

Clinical examination to test grade of Alzheimer was done
1] Identification of objects: pen / pencil / paper was given but she didn’t identify any object
2] Asking to repeat: no response
3] Recalling same objects: no response
4] Sentence writing: no response
5] Copy design: no response
[Note: we ask each question at least five time]

Brain CT: mild atrophy frontal lobe with tiny degenerated areas

Case taking: [as pt is not talking to any one since one year we try to get this case on observation and history given by the relatives]

Observation: on asking questions she didn’t answer very quickly, I have to ask question several time and she hardly gave any answer, no eye to eye contact and no expression on her face,
Question we asked: What is your name?
What is your problem?
What you like?
What you don’t like? And so on, but her answer was “NOTHING’’ only one word NOTHING

Rubrics taken from complete rep. 

KALI-BROM -30 one dose was given

F/O : AFTER 15 DAYS no change

F/O : AFTER 15 DAYS no change

After two days relatives brought her to clinic saying she having watery stool, and fever since one day, swelling on her face blood pressure 140/110 HIGHER THAN HER NORMAL WHICH IS 130 /100

F/O: AFTER 15 DAYS: swelling reduced, no fever, no watery stool, blood pressure 130/90 she got control over her urine and stool, this time she looking up eye to eye contact was there

Clinic test:
Identification of objects pen/pencil/ paper she identifies paper and got confused with pen and pencil
Repetition same she identify paper
Recalling objects same objects: poor response
Sentence writing: poor response but she tried
Copy design: poor response but she tried

F/O: AFTER SEVEN DAYS: relatives said she was weeping since 3days on asking why she is weeping her son said sister in law said some bad about her, [note : this is first time she is weeping after one year, she started reacting to surrounding, weeping is a kind of emotional reaction, it indicates pt is responding to others physical as well as emotional level]
Total control over urine and stool
She now recalls name of her family member it takes time but she started recalling
Dullness and slow ness is there in her activity

F/O : AFTER ONE MONTH : she started asking for things which she want, though it is slight difficult for her to recollect the name of any objects she want
Appetite : slight increase

F/O AFTER ONE MONTH: now she is talking with family member and others, this time she said I am having pain in my right knee [ first time she express her discomfort , it means she can sense her body and express it , it means she started to feel herself as an individual which is most important sign of life ]
On examination : swelling on right knee
Blood pressure 130/90
Appetite: increased
Stool: normal
Urine: normal


F/O AFTER TWO DAYS: swelling reduced, all vitals are in normal range
Still on homeopathic medicine.

Homeopathy for Livestock

"Homeopathy at Wellie Level" is a group for farmers. It began when a group of farmers, homoeopaths and homeopathic vets realised they had a common concern about the lack of support offered to farmers who want to use homoeopathy on their farm.

They decided the best support was a basic, properly constructed, teaching course that would introduce the farmer to the subject as a whole, giving the student the building blocks of knowledge and confidence. After this they decided to offer what they called "lego days" when students could return to discuss specific problems and advance their understanding of this complex and fascinating subject.

For more information, look at their website, http://www.hawl.co.uk/homoeopathic-vets/. In particular, have a look at the 'testimonials' left by farmers who have found homeopathy to be helpful to their business, and of course, their livestock.

Homeopathy for animals is, of course, an important area for the development of homeopathy. Animals don't lie (not that anyone treated successfully with homeopathy needs to 'lie' - but our detractors often accuse us of doing so) and when homeopathic remedies overcome sickness and disease in farm animals, the impact cannot be explained away as 'placebo'.

And for farmers, of course, it gives them access to an entirely safe, very inexpensive, and highly effective method of treating their animals.

Is this why GPs cannot tell the truth?

Oliver Dowding is a good friend to ARH. He has taught us much about what homeopathy can do for farm animals, based on his own personal experiences. In this piece, Oliver takes up the case of Dr Sarah Myhill, who has been pursued and prosecuted by the General Medical Council for over 10 years now. The story is interesting because it might provide a clue to why our GPs don't tell us the truth about Big Pharma drugs - not many would volunteer to go through this kind of persecution! It would seem, as Dr Andrew Wakefield can also testify, that doctors are not supposed, and not allowed to 'break ranks' over the conventional medical consensus. So they continue to provide an unknowing public with dangerous, and often useless drugs and vaccines, to avoid this type of harassment from the Medical Establishment

"In my opinion the GMC are a nasty bunch. They seem to specialise in bully boy tactics, and hounding people with whom they choose to take a philosophical disagreement. Sometimes, it seems as though the opposition and the vitriol with which they fight people has been stoked and reinforced by ammunition provided by others who may have a greater financial interest in the case than the GMC themselves, per se.

The GMC has been pursuing her since 2001, following an anonymous complaint, they decided to investigate Dr Sarah Myhill. She is a GP practicing in Shropshire. They were unhappy about various aspects of her practice, and treatments she was offering. They have subjected her to 7 "Fitness to Practice Hearings" in that time. Each has cost an enormous amount of human energy, and financial outlay. It would be easy for some people to feel browbeaten and to give in. Not Sarah! 

She has stood up and resisted the bully-boys, being perfectly convinced of the rightness of her case

On the day when the GMC dismissed the case, they also failed to release or to substantiate the charges against Dr Myhill. 

I find it highly amusing that during the whole saga, the GMC became fixated about a "Mrs Rosemary Hogg". She was cited in one of the complaints which the GMC put to Dr Myhill, in which they accused her of breaking sanctions imposed by the GMC in tending to a pregnant female, Rosemary Hogg, during childbirth last November. Entertainingly the GMC accusers never realise that Rosemary is in fact Dr. Myhill's pet pig!  

The following comes from her press release after the charges were all dropped.

"Dr. Myhill has observed that “the GMC has been incompetently prosecuting me since 2001. In doing so it has broken its own procedures and the laws of the land. Allegations against me have been vexatious, inconsequential and often untrue. The GMC is a dysfunctional organisation, not fit for purpose”.  Sources close to the GMC say that this has been an orchestrated witch hunt against Dr. Myhill and that the GMC will be deeply embarrassed by their most recent incompetent handling of her case. Indeed embarrassment might not be the GMC’s only problem because, after a recent Freedom Of Information request, it has transpired that, even only considering the most recent action against Dr Myhill alone, the GMC has spent £62,751.60 on solicitors’ fees and other external costs. In addition the GMC’s own internal legal team has clocked up 147 fruitless hours on this most recent case, with the investigation team being unable to disclose its hours!

Dr. Myhill is a private GP with a special interest in treating ME. Indeed she has over 20 years experience in this field and has treated many thousands of patients. She believes she has been targeted by the GMC because she treats ME as a physical, rather than a psychological disorder. The most recent investigation of her was triggered in June 2009, shortly after Dr. Myhill published a scientific paper showing that ME was associated with mitochondrial failure (Ref: Int J Clin Exp Med (2009) 2, 

In its prosecution, the GMC has contravened the 1983 Medical Act by failing to inform Dr. Myhill what charges she faced until after her fourth IOP Hearing.

In addition, the GMC has contravened the 1998 Data Protection Act by taking patients’ private and confidential NHS medical records without patient knowledge or consent and without informing the patient. This appears to be routine procedure for the GMC – it has no respect for patient confidentiality. At one of Dr Myhill’s public hearings the GMC released so much patient information into the public arena that a seriously ill patient at the centre of one of the complaints could easily be identified. 

Neither this patient nor the patient’s family had complained about Dr Myhill and throughout the investigation process, their wishes regarding anonymity were flagrantly disregarded by the GMC. This loss of anonymity caused much distress to the patient and family, distress that was only made worse when malicious and obscene comments were made about the patient on the public forums of the Bad Science website.

By contrast, Dr. Myhill has consistently refused to use the patient’s notes in her defence because permission to use those notes had not been granted by the patient and family in an attempt to protect anonymity. As a result of this disparity in available evidence, Dr. Myhill was denied a fair trial.

In its prosecution the GMC also broke Human Rights legislation. There was no proper separation of prosecution and adjudication teams, Dr. Myhill did not know what charges she faced, the GMC refused to consider the facts given to them by Dr. Myhill and they unquestionably accepted vexatious and untrue allegations from unqualified members of the public and doctors. Indeed at her third Interim Orders Panel Hearing in October 2010, Dr. Myhill told the General Medical Council it was acting like a kangaroo court. She was immediately suspended from the practise of medicine because, she was told, “she lacked respect for her disciplinary body”, i.e. the GMC. At her December 2010 hearing the GMC presented Dr Myhill with yet another anonymous complaint from a member of the public reporting that Dr Myhill had acted outside her area of expertise by delivering babies at home. The GMC had not realised this was a spoof featuring Dr Myhill’s pet pig Rosemary who had indeed delivered 10 healthy piglets that week. It was clear that the GMC had not taken even the most basic investigatory steps, involving merely clicking on a weblink which would have revealed all, before presenting this information before a full session of the Interim Orders Panel. In such circumstances is it any wonder that respect begins to ebb away?

Dr. Myhill has written to the GMC President Professor Peter Rubin to inform him that he was overseeing the activities of a dysfunctional organisation, but he never replied to her letter.
The Trustees of the GMC were similarly informed of all the above issues on two occasions, but again there was no response.

Dr. Myhill formally complained to the GMC about the incompetence and dishonesty of six of its officers, but none of her concerns were addressed. One of these officers briefed an expert witness describing Dr. Myhill as “a male consultant anaesthetic”. One would think it would be difficult to construct a sentence with four untruths in three words, but in this the GMC has at least succeeded.

No patient has ever complained to the General Medical Council about Dr. Myhill. All complaints have emanated either from other doctors who do not agree with her nutritional approach to medicine and her approach to treating ME, or from anonymous members of the public who do not concur with Dr Myhill’s opinions which, along with an online book, have been made freely available on her website. As Stephen Fry wrote in his latest autobiography such bloggers “grow up to become trawlers on the internet site and specialise in posting barbarous mean, abusive, look at me anonymous comments….. Such swine specialise in second guessing the motives of those who are brave enough to commit to the risk of making fools of themselves in public and they are a blight on the face of the earth”. Dr. Myhill said “it is not for the GMC to judge whether one doctor’s opinion is better than another. My opinions, which are evidence based from the scientific literature, have been central to the recovery of thousands of ME patients. In its summing up of my case, the GMC states that I have substantially improved the health of 70% of ME sufferers. This is considerably better than the results of the now discredited regimes of graded exercise therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy. Clearly ME is a physical disorder requiring physical treatment”.

Despite prosecuting Dr. Myhill for ten years, a necessarily stressful and time consuming business, the GMC remain unrepentant. It appears that the GMC has no inclination to correct its ways, or to try to restore Dr. Myhill’s professional reputation. The GMC was similarly heavily criticised by Dame Janet Smith in her report on the Shipman enquiry. Some years later she commented that the GMC was “like a leopard – it never changes its spots”. Dr. Myhill is calling for a full enquiry into GMC incompetence, law breaking and misfeasance in public office. The GMC is the oldest regulatory body in the world and is showing all the symptoms of an advanced senile dementia.