Navigate / search

Homeopathic Cancer Treatment: Research Published from 2013 to 2017

The evidence shows that patients, not physicians, are the primary impetus for the increasing call for homeopathic cancer treatment worldwide. In the countries where homeopathic treatment is available, treatment is often provided in the absence of good professional references on homeopathic cancer drugs.

The Evidence
Scientific Studies Show Tautotherapy is an Effective Treatment for Drug-Induced and Toxic Disorders

In a previous paper we have shown that tautopathic therapy has been a product and outcome of homeopathic practice ever since the classical era of homeopathy.2 Although minor controversies about the place tautopathy ought to maintain within homeopathic practice continue to the present time…

A New Year’s Open Letter to Edzart Ernst

Dear Dr. Ernst,

 

I am posting this response to your December 24 blog post (addressed to me) here on my blog as I have doubts as to whether or not you will publish my response on your own blog…

 

We here at Homeopathic Associates and The Homeopathic College would like to thank you for your open ‘Christmas card’ and your wishes for a Happy New Year, as well as for the publicity it provided us. We have been followers of your opinions for many years now and are delighted at the opportunity to engage in a dialogue.

 

 

 

 

Read more

Racketeering in Medicine: The Campaign to Marginalize Natural Therapies

“Alternative medicine is here to stay. It is no longer an option to ignore it or treat it as something outside the normal processes of science and medicine. “ Wayne B. Jonas, M.D., JAMA, November 11, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 18, p. 1617

Notes

This article was originally submitted to the CAM Educational Project of the Program on Integrative Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, September 2001. It was updated in 2003 to reflect recent developments in anti-CAM activities in North Carolina.

 

Natural Medicine Marginalized as CAM?

As the term “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” (CAM) becomes a household word in government and academic texts, it is worthwhile to reexamine its significance. “Complementary” and “alternative” imply a juxtaposition to “mainstream” medicine that is questionable for a variety of reasons. The term distorts the real role a diverse group of traditional ethnic and innovative therapies, lumped together under the term CAM, play in the lives of a majority of the world’s population. The term obscures the long-standing exclusion of these treatments by the medical and pharmaceutical power structure from the practice of medicine, which, until a few years ago, labeled (libeled?) these therapies “quackery” and “health fraud”. Today it continues to marginalize them by relegating them to a fictitious category of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, invoking scientific arguments to rationalize this exclusion while avoiding any reference to economic motives. This robs legitimate, but unorthodox, medical paradigms of their rightful place within medical science, and may even be harmful to people’s health.

Millions in Africa, Russia, China, India, Central and South America, Europe, Australia, Canada and the United States claim to benefit from homeopathy, acupuncture, ayurveda, herbalism, nature cures, and many other approaches as their main or only method of health care. Most people in those countries neither perceive these therapies as an alternative nor as complementary to “mainstream” medicine. Considering that far more people are treated with “CAM” therapies worldwide than by “Western” medicine, it is a mystery, to say the least, that the definition of the term CAM has not been more widely questioned. Read more

Quantum Entanglement in Homeopathic Trials?

Most homeopathic studies seek to investigate whether homeopathic treatment can be shown to be effective within accepted methodologies of medicine, biology, chemistry and physics. However, there are theoreticians that argue that traditional research methods are inappropriate or insufficient to assess homeopathy. Calls for employing concepts from quantum physics in support of the ultra-dilution hypothesis, i.e. to counter accusations of relative paucity of positive results from homeopathic treatment in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), are made by several of these theorists, and even from within the community of homeopathic practitioners.

 

British homeopath Lionel Milgrom likes to dazzle his audiences with complex formulas derived from quantum physics to make his points. In a 2005 article1 he examined whether RCTs are redundant for testing the efficacy of homeopathy. He had observed that RCTs had yet to deliver unequivocal results demonstrating on the efficacy (or otherwise) of homeopathic remedies and individualized homeopathic prescribing. He asked if this could be caused by an implicit assumption inherent in RCT methodology that specific effects of a remedy and any nonspecific effects of consultation are independent of each other. He postulated a patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement model as a necessary condition of homeopathic therapeutic interaction.

 

Milgrom called for alternatives to RCTs that can take into account possible entangled specific and nonspecific effects during trials of homeopathy. He theorized that since RCTs sometimes deliver positive results for the use of homeopathic remedies, that this may be caused by residual entanglement arising from homeopathic remedy manufacture. He proposed as one possibility that a homeopathic remedy “entails the entangled intention of those involved in its preparation” citing similar arguments by others. As a second option he proposed a surviving residual entanglement from remedy production but, ironically, as the cause of so-called Memory of Water (MoW) effects. Read more