View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 3rd May 2005, 12:36 PM
bwv11 bwv11 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 1,020
bwv11
Default

hi jim,

i am a therapist also, in general practice including a special interest in kids. the past several years i have developed a strong interest in homeopathy, although as i am not licensed to prescribe, i have not used homeopathy directly in my practice.

you will not find, in your searches, much that is encouraging for homeopathy in randomized, statistical research: nearly all such studies have show poorly for homeopathy, and those that have shown well seem uniformaly to be nitpicked to death for methodological shortcomings. if you look in my profile for my history of posting, you will find numerous discussions of this issue, many of them quite heated, i'm afraid, but perhaps useful to you anyway ... perhaps as a therapist, you have more capacity for drawing insights out of case studies, than many research scientists seem to have.

you might also try the popular book, ritalin free kids, by judyth reichenberg-ullman and robert ullman. truthfully, i am not fond of this book, but many homeopaths recommend it highly, and it gives a broad survey of the subject.

usually the scientifically-inclined want to see specific applications of homeopathic remedies: what remedy will cure adhd? or arthritis pain? or whatever. but remedies are individualized, as are therapeutic interventions, and asking the question in that way is like asking you to identify which dream interpretation will cure separation anxiety?

the problem of research in homeopathy is a thorny one, as thorny as in dream work, so i recommend you give a wider berth to formal research than you might ordinarily like to do, in particular, since your patient's mother seems to be asking specifically about homeopathy, rather than about otc treatments in general.

bach
__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


Reply With Quote