Fight for Homeopathy - Now!

Homeopathy is regularly having to defend itself - from attacks from supporters of the Conventional Medical (ConMed) Establishment. Actually, we have become quite used to it. Hahnemann himself, 200 years ago, was under regular attack from the ConMed practitioners of his day! It is what happens, I suppose, when an effective and safe medical therapy is in 'minority', but threatens ConMed, which has always struggled to find treatment that was not totally ineffective, or dangerous - and it is now in serious trouble.

When ARH members were discussing the 'consolidation' of the Medicines Act recently, one of our members wrote in with a heart-felt plea - to reject this particular attack, one of a series over recent years, and not to allow matters to rest. This is what she said:

Dear all!

I've been reading all your comments about Medicines Act Consolidation in the few past days, sometimes with disbelieve, but mostly with great concern, not just for homeopathy, or our businesses, but for the future of the humankind. 

I am very worried because some of you do not realize what is going on, and propose for waiting, and being decent and polite, and quiet above all.

I beg you not to be quiet, and not to wait! I beg you to shout, to write to your MPs three times a day, to go to the press and media, to go to the streets before it's too late.

You may think I'm being paranoid, but I live in Serbia, a country where it is too late already, where yesterday people elected a fascist for a president, where I practice homeopathy, illegally, because only (conventional) medical persons can practice.

I have practiced homeopathy for last 13 years, with over 2 years working with Helios, and some time practicing in Wales. I've also lived through starvation, war and bombing, none of which was my choice, but I used every possible way to stand against it. Mind you, one of Serbian dictators was overruled by the noise we all made by the whistles. Maybe it wasn't decent, certainly it wasn't quiet, but it worked against Milosevic.

There isn't a place on this planet where you can be safe or where you can avoid the consequences of not doing what is in your power to do NOW. Otherwise, what's next, who's next? 

* Compulsory vaccinations?

* GMO food?

* Poisoned water?

* Killing the people and animals, killing life? 

It is YOUR choice? If not, do something now, please.

Marija Mihajlov sent her 'love and hope to all' - but she sent us more than this through her message. She reminded us that we, as Homeopaths, cannot be content to treat people, and heal their illnesses and disease (although, of course we must continue to do so). We cannot just allow our opponents, and the vested interests they support, to attack us without responding vigorously.

Our health freedom is at stake here. Already, children are being removed from their parents because they refuse to allow them to have a vaccination. Already, a British MP is calling for compulsory vaccination. And in most parts of the UK, local NHS bureaucrats are stopping patients from gaining access to homeopathy - insisting they take ConMed drugs instead!

And perhaps Marija is right. If we meekly accept any of these things, we will not be facing an NHS which has become a monopoly supplier of ConMed treatment; but an NHS that goes one stage further;  and NHS that insists we do not even have the right to refuse dangerous vaccinations and drugs.

In 1776, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, foretold something of what is now happening:

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic."

Medical freedom is increasingly under attack. You will note that one major objective of the 'Homeopathy Denialists', is to oppose 'Patient Choice'. They state that Homeopathy does not, and cannot work, ignoring all the evidence that surrounds them that it does, and insist that we are treated with toxic chemicals and surgery - because they are based on their version of 'science'.

So I ask you all, in Marija's words:

I beg you not to be quiet, and not to wait! I beg you to shout, to write to your MPs three times a day, to go to the press and media, to go to the streets before it's too late.

Steve Scrutton

Director, ARH

Patient Choice: no decision about me without me?

Government policy is clear. It is in favour of Patient Choice. As their white paper states, clearly and concisely, "No decision about me without me". So for those of us who would want to have homeopathic treatment for our illnesses, this should mean that we just go to our GP, tell him/her we want homeopathy with this (named) homeopath, and we will get it. But matters are not quite so straightforward!

This may be the policy of the central government at Westminster; but what about decision-making within the NHS at PCT (commissioning) level? Everywhere, requests for homeopathy are meeting with a bureaucratic veto, whether this is in Bournemouth (with a 94 year old pensioner), in Birmingham (my son), in Swindon, where a group is currently fighting a battle with the local PCT adamantly opposed to patient choice - if that choice is homeopathy!

The situation is the same in the South-West of England, where the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital is now under threat because local PCTs are refusing to refer patients there. This was, of course, why the homeopathic hospital in Tunbridge closed recently. And the homeopathy hospital in London is under pressure for the same reason. This report, sent to me by Oliver Dowding, is about a meeting held recently regarding the situation in the Bristol area.

In attendance we had the chairman of the British Homoeopathic Association, John Cook, the chief executive, Crystal Sumner. They succinctly outlined the difficulties they've been having on the Wirral in getting referral to the Liverpool Homoeopathic Hospital unit. John then ran through why everything that the BANES (Bath and North East Somerset) NHS trust has done recently is 'challengeable'. The trust didn't tell anyone they were not going to allow referrals by the PCT's. This only came to light when the Bristol homeopathic hospital highlighted that they were getting no referrals. John asked whether this could be, if one were cynical (and the way they act tempts us to be that), an attempt to reduce referrals and therefore say there was no demand for homeopathy! As he told us, this goes completely against the NHS Constitution.


As has happened in Liverpool/Wirral, there is still hope that the referrals will be reinstated, and if this happens, then this becomes the new 'status quo', which could be an even better situation.


John also handed out a piece from the British Medical Journal, dated 13th January 1996. I found a copy online, and have saved it and attached it. This contained this excellent quote, that "evidence-based medicine" is not "cookbook" medicine because it requires a 'bottom up' approach that integrates the best external evidence with individual clinical expertise and the choice of the patient. Evidence based medicine, it says, cannot result in slavish, cookbook approach to individual patient care. External clinical evidence can inform, but can never replace, individual clinical expertise; and it is this expertise that decides whether the 'external evidence' applies to an individual patient, and, if so, how it should be integrated into a clinical decision." It goes on further to say that "evidence-based medicine is not restricted to randomised trials and meta-analyses. It involves tracking down the best external evidence with which to answer our clinical questions."


John also highlighted the anomaly which allows local GPs to refer if they think it is clinically relevant. Naturally, with so many GPs being opposed to homoeopathy, some quite violently, this is just not going to happen. Therefore, the NHS is likely to conclude 'there is no demand' for homeopathy, and the vicious circle continues. He noted that Wiltshire has currently reached the position of disinvesting from homeopathy, and that there was therefore the risk of contagion. So BANES are now trying to follow suit, and whilst there is now with significant likelihood of this decision being overturned, this leaves Somerset (which is treated as one PCT) being the most favourably disposed towards homoeopathy. Therefore, he suggested that it was best not cause a ruckus at this stage, and risk this situation turning against us.


Those at the meeting were told that what patients need to do is to ensure that when they visit their GP surgery, and ask to see a homoeopath, or they are referred to somewhere such as the Bristol homoeopathic hospital, they need to quote the 1948 NHS act, which has enshrined their right to homeopathic treatment.


Several people at the meeting highlighted the excellent Swiss Government report on homoeopathy, which needs to be widely publicised. (For an assessment of this report, and its importance for homeopathy, click here). It seems a mystery that the report was completed in 2005 but only published in English in 2010! Nevertheless, we now need to read it, and use it.  The report has found homoeopathy to be a very successfully medical therapy, and that there is lots of important evidence to support this claim. Homeopathy has demonstrated that it is now truly an 'evidence-based medicine'.


We then had presentation by Dr Lee Burton, from the Bristol Homoeopathic Hospital. He highlighted that many PCT's and doctors, when asked about referring to homoeopathy, seemed to rank its level of importance with that of a referral for tattoo removal!


Yet about 40% of their referrals come from conventional medicine, which has failed to resolve the health problem. The worst case came to the hospital after seeing 15 different consultants! After a period with the Bristol homoeopathic hospital the patient was 80% improved. Success indeed! 


Dr Burton also highlighted that for the NHS one big problem is "MUPS", which stands for "Medically Unexplained Persistent Symptoms. He noted that in general these conditions get a 60 - 70% positive response to homoeopathy, which appears to be remarkably constant. He also remarked that around 58% of the patients are in the working age category, with only 12% being above 65 years old. In noting the 60-70% successful resolution figure he agreed that this was a skewed statistic, given that a large number of these patients are considered the "basket cases" - the one's that the NHS (and conventional medicine) has failed to resolve.


Finally, he exhorted us all to join the friends of Bristol Homoeopathic Hospital. This does not mean that one is committing to either financial or time support, but one is giving them more power to their elbow by being a supporter. Given that the homoeopathy has always been patient-driven he said that having the largest possible support base is now more important than ever, as it helps to justify the patient's voice being heard within the NHS. Becoming a friend is easy, by going to their website (http://www.uhbristol.nhs.uk/patients-and-visitors/your-hospitals/bristol-homeopathic-hospital/), or alternatively sending an e-mail to either friendsofBHHgroup@hotmail.co.uk or bris.co.ordinator@gmail.com.   


I also suggest that as many people using Facebook as possible enrol with this group,  H:MC21 ... Homeopathy Worked For Me  https://www.facebook.com/groups/329854830896/  

We all need to remember that we are entitled to free homeopathic treatment on the NHS when we are ill. What Oliver's report does is to highlight that if we want to be treated safely and effectively with Homeopathy, or want to avoid the dangers and ineffectiveness of conventional medical treatment, we are all going to have to demand it, and fight for it.

The conventional medical establishment is in control of the NHS, and they are vehemently opposed to opening it up to homeopathy - quite regardless of what Government policy say, or their patients want.

Patient Choice, David Cameron, and the Government

People who use homeopathy usually like it. People who use homeopathy after years, sometimes decades of conventional treatment, usually love homeopathy! And sometimes, even people not associated with homeopathy are discovered to be 'fans'.

David Cameron is the latest to express his views on the value and benefit of homeopathy. Whilst defending NHS reforms on Channel 4, he said this:

"I’m going to sound like a homeopath but this is like looking at the whole of the patient."


Well, this is not exactly a ringing endorsement, but at least he knows something about homeopathy - that it seeks to treat 'the whole person' rather than dealing with its parts. And, of course the last two governments have refused to stop homeopathy being provided on the NHS - despite the pressures from the conventional medical establishment to get rid of its competition in this way!

However, the problem with the government's 'Patient Choice' policy is that it has no means of implementing it. "No decision about me without me" is a great slogan; but it is entirely worthless if patients have no means of accessing the treatment they wish to have - and for growing numbers of people it is homeopathy.

The policy will not be implemented whilst the government supports the concept of 'localism', and giving local 'clinicians' the power to allow, and disallow treatments like homeopathy. The problem is that most of these local clinicians are conventional medics; and they dominate GP surgeries, and local PCTs. So if Marjorie Titchen, or I, or my son, or anyone else, wants homeopathy on the National Health Service, we get the answer 'No'. The conventional medical establishment is supporting the virtual monopoly in health provision with the NHS - and seeking to rid itself of alternative treatments.

So thanks for your support, Prime Minister; but we would now like to see some action from your government in support of your 'Patient Choice' policy.


The disinformation that is being spread about homeopathy, by the conventional medical establishment, is not bearing fruit. Instead, homeopathy and other CAM therapies are growing in popularity. This increasing popularity is, in fact, as much to do with the failure of conventional, drug-based medicine as it is with the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy. So people hear the disinformation, and ignore it. They do so in much the same way that two governments have ignored the House of Commons Committee that told the government it should no longer fund homeopathy. The committee's report was signed off by just 3 MP's, and after being presented with considerable scientific evidence in support of homeopathy, they were still able to claim "there is no evidence for homeopathy".

Supporting the ConMed Establishment, and Big Pharma in this disinformation campaign is the mainstream media. The popularity of the media is now at an all-time low. Little wonder, given that on most, if not all issues, the media simply supports the position of Big Business. For instance, they acclaim every new Big Pharma drug as breakthroughs and miracles. And then fail to report on drugs that kill, or cause disease, or are just totally ineffective. So as far as the 'Patient Choice' agenda is concerned, the media does not appear to realise that there is a health monopoly within the NHS; or that the rights of patients who want 'alternative' treatment is being trampled on. Where is their commitment to the public?

The action needed to make 'Patient Choice' a reality is quite simple. Every PCT, every Commissioning organisation, or every GP surgery, should be required to employ someone who is prepared to refer patients for homeopathy, and other CAM treatments. There are no cost implications in doing so. Homeopathic treatment is eminently less expensive than conventional, drug based medicine; it works so there are fewer 'return' patients; and it does not create chronic disease.

If David Cameron wants to treat the public 'holistically' this is one simple action that is well within his grasp.

Healthy Medicine (7) Patient Choice

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." 

Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson, a powerful advocate of personal liberty, knew over 200 years ago that patient choice is one of the most important elements of human rights. He would undoubtedly be upset by what is happening in the USA today - with government and health authorities trying to impose conventional drugs and vaccines on people who would rather not have them. He would also be opposed to a UK NHS that in many (most) areas of the country is imposing a conventional, drug-based medical monopoly on its patients.

This is particularly so when a growing, and now substantial part of the population, is looking for safer, more effective, drug-free solutions to their health problems. The reason is not just the failure of conventional medicine to deliver health. It is the growing awareness that homeopathy, and indeed, other natural therapies, provide them with just this - safe and effective therapy for a range of illnesses and ailments.

So here are just a few of the articles about homeopathy that can be found on the internet - but not, of course, in the national media. Nor, regrettably, will you hear about any of this within our NHS.

* Homeopathy and skin conditions

* Homeopathy and itching

* Homeopathy, smoking, and other addictions

* Homeopathy and heartburn

* Homeopathy and Breast Pain

* Homeopathy and Endometriosis

* Homeopathy and Genital Warts

* Homeopathy and Diabetes

* Homeopathy and Nightmares, Night-Terrors

* Homeopathy and Ulcerative Colitis

* Homeopathy and Fatigue (Tiredness)

* Homeopathy for anger and mortification


As one great Indian politician and statesman once said:

Homeopathy cures a greater percentage of cases than any other method of treatment. Homeopathy is the latest and most refined method of treating patients economically and non-violently.
                                                                                                                            - Mahatma Gandhi

NHS. No Choice for Marjorie!

We are rightly proud of our health service. The principles of the 1947 NHS Act still apply, in the most part, that any citizen, when sick, will have access to health treatment - regardless of his or her ability to pay.

But is everyone getting access to the type of treatment they want?

All the main political parties now parade ‘patient choice’ as an important objective for the future of the NHS. The previous Labour government, in its White Paper, (“Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a new direction for community services. January 2006)” confirmed this. Patricia Hewitt, Health Secretary at the time, stated this:

“(more) people (are) wanting a different approach to services, looking for real choices, more local care, taking greater control over their health, supported to remain independent wherever possible”.

The new coalition Government’s White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: liberating the NHS. July 2010” says this:

“We want the principle of "shared decision making" to become the norm: no decision about me without me. International evidence shows that involving patients in their care and treatment improves their health outcomes, boosts their satisfaction with services received, and increases not just their knowledge and understanding of their health status but also their adherence to a chosen treatment. It can also bring significant reductions in cost, as highlighted in the Wanless Report, and in evidence from various programmes to improve the management of long-term health conditions.

Yet is this anywhere near close to reality within the NHS?

Marjorie Titchen is 93 years old. She lives in Bournemouth, where she continues to run a small hotel. She says that she will retire when she is 100 years old! By this time she will have paid taxes for over 80 years, so she has certainly paid her dues, and her entitlement to health treatment should surely be unquestioned.

Yet despite this she has been fighting now for several years for treatment for her osteoarthritis. But the Bournemouth and Poole PCT has refused to consider it. Why? Because Marjorie wants to see a homeopath, and the PCT insists that they will allow her access only to conventional treatment.

Marjorie refuses to accept conventional treatment, and her arthritis is getting worse. She says she has heard too much about the ‘adverse reactions’ to drugs, and does not want to go down that route.

Even her GP supports her, and has referred her for homeopathy treatment - but still the PCT remains unmoved. She has made representations, and formal complaints; she had written to the Department of Health; she has talked to her MP; she has highlighted her case in the local media. All to no avail.

The PCT refuses to budge on its paternalistic belief that it knows best. Their primary defense appears to be that there is ‘no evidence’ that homeopathy is effective in treating osteoarthritis.

Wrong, says Marjorie! She developed osteoarthritis over 12 years ago, and was referred to homeopathic treatment by the PCT at that time. This relieved her pain, and for several years she was pain free. So as she says, she is living proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy.

Wrong, says the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, referring to the research that has been carried out into arthritis that shows it can be effective in the treatment of the disease.

This includes research that found homeopathy provided a level of pain-relief superior to a conventional drug, used as a control. This research, carried out in 1998, also found that homeopathy produced ‘no adverse reactions’.

So what is happening here? Mrs Titchen wants to access homeopathic treatment. Her GP supports her. Her homeopath is willing to treat her, as he did, successfully, several years ago. Homeopathic treatment is not expensive, indeed, it is less expensive than the conventional treatment she is being offered.

Yet the PCT still sees fit to make the purely bureaucratic decision to deny her the treatment she is asking for.

The NHS is dominated by conventional medicine, and it has become a monopoly. The bureaucrats in charge of PCTs in most areas don’t want to consider homeopathic treatment because they don’t want us to breach their monopoly. They also don’t want to allow homeopathy to prove more effective in the treatment of diseases, such as arthritis, than the favour medicine - in which, of course, they have a personal vested interest.

Government policy on patient choice is a mess. It talks about ‘patient choice’ but what it allows to happen within the NHS runs contrary to this objective. When the Department of Health is asked to comment on this kind of situation, it says that the decision rests at the local level, with the local PCT, which has to take ‘local needs’ into consideration. No doubt this is part of their laudable policy to devolve NHS power from the centre to local areas. But devolving power from London to local PCTs it acts against patient choice, as can be seen in Marjorie Titchen’s case.

The Bournemouth and Poole PCT, and its bureacracy has decided not to offer Mrs Titchen homeopathy. It know better than Marjories, her GP, and her homeopath. Such a decision is anathema ‘patient choice’, and all patients looking for drug-free treatment are certainly not getting the medicine of their choice.

And the only person who is suffering, literally, is Marjorie............

Patient Choice in NHS Healthcare - after PCTs

Thanks to Timothy McCaw for this blog on the subject of 'patient choice'.

I may be behind the curve, as they say, but in case I am not, the following may be of interest.

This week I represented our local Rural Parish Council at a talk given by South Somerset Together to maybe 60 RPC reps to update us on the so-called Sustainable Community Strategy for South Somerset - “to lead and and improve the delivery of services…" - that will meet the social, economic, environmental, educational, health and safety needs of all the communities in S. Somerset.

Two interesting things: 

1. The plans for setting up a Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) combining Somerset and Devon, Plymouth and Torbay to bring together local businesses to jump start greater job creation, productivity, and improve infrastructure – eg broadband, road, rail, housing – across this new “mega county”. LEPs are being pushed by the Coalition Govt right across the UK I understand.

2. The changes to the administration of the NHS at local level.

Dr Harry Yoxall, Secretary of the Local Medical Committee for Somerset gave a talk 

“Working together to make us Healthier” 

in place of Dr Ian Phillips of Wincanton (whom I believe is a 'homeopathophobe' - see later)

Dr Yoxall said he was involved in something called 'Interim GP Commissioning Consultation'. He reminded us of the recent scrapping of 2 layers of NHS management – the Strategic Health Authorities and the PCTs. In their place would come the NHS Commissioning Boards.

Within each county there will be a number of Doctors “Federations”, each of which will have on it representatives from the Drs practices in part of the county. Each Federation will have a delegated budget from which NHS services will be provided for their particular patch. The Federation would be able to say, for example, in respect of some aspect of care “Is there a charity in my patch which would have the resources to be able deliver (a certain service)”.

He felt that there would be “huge opportunities for the voluntary sector”. 

Dr Yoxall was only giving a broad brush outline, and not saying anything contentious, but what was implicit was that The Commissioning Board (made up entirely by doctors?), influenced by the Drs Federations, would be the gatekeepers over what medical services were available under the NHS in the future. Given the views of the Dr for whom Dr Yoxall substituted, this could mean that homeopathy under the NHS in Somerset is going to struggle. 

The reason I say this is that Dr Iain Phillips’s son went public in May this year in the local website, 'The Wincanton Window', just before I gave a free talk on 'Homeopathy for the Family', stating 

“No, no, no, no. Please do not spend your precious money on homeopathy. It has no mainstream scientific evidence supporting it at all and it has never passed a legitimate double blind trial…….the objection to homeopathy …. is that homeopathy is complete rubbish.” 

When I responded with a lengthy putdown to Dr Phillips’s son, his father waded in with 

“Where is the statistically significant, placebo controlled, peer reviewed evidence in reputable journals?” followed by his son again, “Quite. I do wish Mr MacCaw would name even a single such piece of peer-reviewed journal evidence instead of giving a myriad of links and assertions about how effective it is. ….Shame on you for offering a first aid course which proposes using water to cure ailments. I really hope no one is taken in by this".

I prefaced my second reply with the comment ... "with advance apologies for the length of this comment... necessitated by the need to encourage the Phillips's not to make untrue assertions, and to learn to integrate their approach to medical healthcare with with those of other historically effective therapies". 

I am not giving that response here, suffice to say that it effectively silenced the yabbering of the Phillips' clan. (The exchange can be seen at http://www.wincantonwindow.co.uk/is-there-a-place-for-homeopathy-in-the-21st-century-home.htm?jn4d342919=3#jotnav4d3429193d27e30ebf41f52281208975).

It is this person, with his views, who may well become one of the new gatekeepers to the healthcare options to which the public have access under the NHS!

This all points up how important it is for complementary therapists to get to understand how the new system will work and work out how the new gatekeepers can be challenged where appropriate.

One obvious way is that complementary therapists, as patients themselves of their local GP practice, should think about getting a place on that practice’s Patients Participation Group (or keep in close communication with and brief a sympathetic contact on such a group) in order to try and ensure that local GPs do not arbitrarily veto certain elements of complementary healthcare even though their patients are requesting it. If the GPs persist in their veto, then this could be publicised in local magazines and websites, such as the one I mentioned, to bring sufficient pressure to force a change of such a practice, or at least make it the subject of public debate to the possible embarrassment of the practice. As my exchange showed, GPs sometimes don’t know what they are talking about!

If pressure from patients doesn’t work, then our associations could consider asking Government for an Ombudsman to scrutinize the Commissioning Boards’ and Federations’ (monopolising) practices.