Homeopathy - its time is coming! So states Amy Lansky, PhD., in this lovely article. If you are new to homeopathy, or if you are looking for a safer, more effective medical therapy, you should read it. And it is hard to disagree with her argument that 'energy' medicine, and homeopathy in particular, is the medicine of the near future. If the 19th century saw its birth and development, and the 20th century saw it being overshadowed by the promise of the emerging 'scientific' medicine, the 21st century is proving that so-called 'scientific' or conventional medicine (ConMed) has little to offer patients, who are now, in increasing numbers, looking a real, effective alternative.
And as the Faculty of Homeopathy argues, homeopathy is not only far safer that ConMed, it is also less expensive. This article refers to a French government report that found that the total cost per patient receiving homeopathic treatment was 15% less than the cost of conventional treatment.
I must say that I would dispute this figure, as it is probably far higher. As a practising homeopath, I have always found that homeopathy was a difficult business. A patient walks through the door, you treat him, or her, and he, or she, gets better. End of business! ConMed treatments don't make people better in that permanent way; often patients are told they have to take drugs for the rest of their lives, their ailments and diseases carry on, ameliorated, but not cured. And with the disease-inducing-effects of Big Pharma drugs, conventional medicine has, in time, even more illness and disease to treat and pay for.
Yet talking a individuals being 'cured' of disease does not go down well with those who criticise homeopathy - the homeopathy deniers. They are dismissed as 'anecdotes'; their testimony is not 'scientific'. They forget that these people, myself included, are patients, who were once ill, but are now better. And being well is what all patients want. So let's look at a few more 'anecdotes'!
This is one - who states that "after about 18 weeks of being on homeopathy my life went from being almost unbearable to the best I have ever known". Note that she says that homeopathy was 'a bit pricey' - but remember that she clearly paid for her treatment, and did not have it on the NHS. We tend to compare 'free' health treatment on the NHS with paying for homeopathy privately. And homeopathy denialists are keen that patients should be refused the choice of having homeopathy paid for by the NHS.
Here are two cases of 'retained placenta' - cured by the homeopathy remedy, Sepia.
And here, a single patient suffering from obesity, and much else, treated with Calcarea.
And here, a case of a young boy with facial tics, again treated with Calcarea.
But of course, anecdotes don't remain as such after a significant number of people have been known to be cured. They becomes statistics - people who know the value of homeopathy. So altogether, these 'anecdotes' now mean, according to the British Homeopathic Association, that some 15% of the UK population currently use homeopathy. And as this article explains, part of the anecdotal evidence now includes celebrities such as Paul McCartney, David Beckham, Twiggy, Roger Daltrey, Susan Hampshire, Tina Turner, Louise Jameson, Gaby Roslin, Jude Law, Sade Frost, Nadia Sawalha, Richard Branson, Debra Stephenson, Meera Syal, and of course the Queen, and many of the Royal Family.
And where homeopathy is used, high levels of patient satisfaction are usually reported. This is a study emanating from Germany, but I wonder how many of you know about a pilot project undertaken in 2008 by the Department of Health, and the NHS, in Northern Ireland. This, too, showed great support from patients, and considerable benefits for the NHS. These included, amongst others, a reduction in drugs expenditure, an alleviation of GP and hospital workload, and savings accruing from reduced sick leave. What happened as a result? Nothing! There are clearly people in the NHS and the Department of Health who don't want you to know just how good homeopathy is! I cannot even find anything about the pilot study on their website! However, I have a copy of the PDF report - and if anyone emails me I will forward a copy to them.
Yet everywhere homeopathy is under attack. Why? The underlying reason is that the ConMed Establishment wants to retain its monopoly within the NHS. But Big Pharma drugs are failing, and failing badly. And like most wounded animals, it attacks those it is most fearful of - and homeopathy fits this bill. As Harvey Bigelsen, MD, says:
Only ConMed can do this - and they signally fail to do so. So their attacks are not undertaken from a position of strength, but a position of weakness. Big Pharma companies, and their apologists may have a lot of wealth and influence. But they have no ability to 'treat' or 'cure' illness. Homeopathy does.
Steve Scrutton
Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopath
Note. The articles contained in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the ARH.
And as the Faculty of Homeopathy argues, homeopathy is not only far safer that ConMed, it is also less expensive. This article refers to a French government report that found that the total cost per patient receiving homeopathic treatment was 15% less than the cost of conventional treatment.
I must say that I would dispute this figure, as it is probably far higher. As a practising homeopath, I have always found that homeopathy was a difficult business. A patient walks through the door, you treat him, or her, and he, or she, gets better. End of business! ConMed treatments don't make people better in that permanent way; often patients are told they have to take drugs for the rest of their lives, their ailments and diseases carry on, ameliorated, but not cured. And with the disease-inducing-effects of Big Pharma drugs, conventional medicine has, in time, even more illness and disease to treat and pay for.
Yet talking a individuals being 'cured' of disease does not go down well with those who criticise homeopathy - the homeopathy deniers. They are dismissed as 'anecdotes'; their testimony is not 'scientific'. They forget that these people, myself included, are patients, who were once ill, but are now better. And being well is what all patients want. So let's look at a few more 'anecdotes'!
This is one - who states that "after about 18 weeks of being on homeopathy my life went from being almost unbearable to the best I have ever known". Note that she says that homeopathy was 'a bit pricey' - but remember that she clearly paid for her treatment, and did not have it on the NHS. We tend to compare 'free' health treatment on the NHS with paying for homeopathy privately. And homeopathy denialists are keen that patients should be refused the choice of having homeopathy paid for by the NHS.
Here are two cases of 'retained placenta' - cured by the homeopathy remedy, Sepia.
And here, a single patient suffering from obesity, and much else, treated with Calcarea.
And here, a case of a young boy with facial tics, again treated with Calcarea.
But of course, anecdotes don't remain as such after a significant number of people have been known to be cured. They becomes statistics - people who know the value of homeopathy. So altogether, these 'anecdotes' now mean, according to the British Homeopathic Association, that some 15% of the UK population currently use homeopathy. And as this article explains, part of the anecdotal evidence now includes celebrities such as Paul McCartney, David Beckham, Twiggy, Roger Daltrey, Susan Hampshire, Tina Turner, Louise Jameson, Gaby Roslin, Jude Law, Sade Frost, Nadia Sawalha, Richard Branson, Debra Stephenson, Meera Syal, and of course the Queen, and many of the Royal Family.
And where homeopathy is used, high levels of patient satisfaction are usually reported. This is a study emanating from Germany, but I wonder how many of you know about a pilot project undertaken in 2008 by the Department of Health, and the NHS, in Northern Ireland. This, too, showed great support from patients, and considerable benefits for the NHS. These included, amongst others, a reduction in drugs expenditure, an alleviation of GP and hospital workload, and savings accruing from reduced sick leave. What happened as a result? Nothing! There are clearly people in the NHS and the Department of Health who don't want you to know just how good homeopathy is! I cannot even find anything about the pilot study on their website! However, I have a copy of the PDF report - and if anyone emails me I will forward a copy to them.
Yet everywhere homeopathy is under attack. Why? The underlying reason is that the ConMed Establishment wants to retain its monopoly within the NHS. But Big Pharma drugs are failing, and failing badly. And like most wounded animals, it attacks those it is most fearful of - and homeopathy fits this bill. As Harvey Bigelsen, MD, says:
"What is common among the (CAM) professions ... is that they cost far less than drugs, surgery, imaging, and laboratory tests. The AMA, through its state medical boards, in conjunction with the FDA and other local, state, and federal agencies, keeps a close eye on these practitioners in case they might claim to "cure," "diagnose," "treat," or "prescribe." Each profession noted has, at one time or another, experienced relentless legal pursuit. Any non-drug sold in this country must follow strict rules about labeling to avoid suggesting any "medical" or "health" benefit.
Only ConMed can do this - and they signally fail to do so. So their attacks are not undertaken from a position of strength, but a position of weakness. Big Pharma companies, and their apologists may have a lot of wealth and influence. But they have no ability to 'treat' or 'cure' illness. Homeopathy does.
Steve Scrutton
Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopath
Note. The articles contained in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the ARH.
