I was amazed at the wide publicity given to the report in The Lancet, which has made a damning attack on homoeopathy, saying it is no better than dummy drugs.



The report quotes a Swiss-UK review of 110 trials which found no convincing evidence the treatment worked any better than a placebo.

External link: 'Homoeopathy's clinical effects are placebo effects'

I feel the findings are of people who conducted the trials and did not achieve results. I think they were not fit enough to use this beautiful science or were not qualified enough or did not understand how to gauge the reactions of a patient. Perhaps their follow-up was considered in the parameters of allopathy.

Homeopaths abroad are not qualified or have not graduated as those in India. India is the only country where there are 200 institutions which are working according to government regulations which set up the curriculum as per the instructions of an elected body like the Central Council of Homoeopathy or the Central Council of Research in Homoeopathy.

We are the only country which has the in-depth infrastructure to rule this science. Our students study for five-and-a-half years before getting qualified. Homeopaths abroad are either those who have done six- month courses or weekend courses or those converted form allopathy.

There is a Supreme Court judgment which holds that those qualified in one science and practising another are 'quacks'. By that reckoning those damning homoeopathy are no better than quacks. Besides, abroad, homoeopaths are not allowed to treat all diseases.

So how did those who conducted the trials operate? These are questions that beg answers.

Some Indian practising homoeopaths are also to blame. They don't take pains to co-relate science with advances of modern science. Nobody takes pains to standardise science which is why this has happened. I would blame our Indians who go abroad and tell the world that there is no cure in homeopathy for pneumonia or rheumatoid arthritis.

I have lectured in Russia and Brazil, which is the next best country after India in homeopathy. The home country, Germany, alas, has allowed the science to become obsolete, just as India allowed the Sanskrit language to die.

I would like to ask a simple question to the detractors. Was the founder, Dr Samuel Hahneman, a fool to start homoeopathy?

Remember, he was a practising allopath who turned to homoeopathy becasue he found no cures in allopathy for relapsing ailments like coughs and colds, allergies, hypertension, asthma and thyroid. They were never curable but only controllable.

Dr Hahnneman went in search of a science which could eradicate these ailments. A science, which would be one step ahead of the one he was already practising.

For this reason I started Predictive Homoeopathy based on the theory of suppression, immunology, genetics, embryology, human bichemnistry and neuro-endocrinology.

I have had wonderful results in curing rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, alopecia, and psoriasis. My thrust now is on cancer and we are close to a breakthrough.Dr Prafull Vijayakar is the President of the Indian Institute of Homoeopathic Physicians. He is also an honorary physician and professor Smt Chandaben Mohanbhai Patel Homoeopathic Medical College, Mumbai, and director Predictive Homeopathy Academy for Charities & Research).

source link http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/03guest1.htm

__________________
Dr.A.Kannan MD(Hom)
www.homoeodoctor.com

Independent of any possible criticism of this posting, I find it amazing that Dr Vijayakar is so scathing of all homoeopaths outside of India. So, according to the good doctor, all you who have not gone through the Indian homoeopathy education are nothing but mere poorly qualified amateurs.

Comments ?

I would totally disagree with this. Training courses in the UK last for 4 years. These are part time courses of study and then there are 2 degree courses which can be studied full time over 3 years or part time over 5 to 6 years.

I know of no 6 month or weekend courses that exist in homeopathy here. Even the Faculty of Homeopathy, where doctors and other healthcare professionals train have courses that are longer than 6 months. You train for one year and then take the first exam. You must then do a further 2 years training before taking more exams so that membership can be obtained. So training for doctors takes three years and it is only after membership has been attained that they can practice as full time homeopaths with any competency. Until then, they must practice within the boundaries of their current knowledge. Mostly after taking their LFHom exams, they would generally prescribe homeopathy for first aid situations.

Basically, India is a different country and as far as I can tell, homeopaths in India do tend to see and treat a lot of deep pathology that homeopaths in other countries just would not treat. Perhaps this is why they need a longer training to encompass this. Homeopaths in the UK would not be treating the kinds of cases that homeopaths in India would. This is why the training here meets our needs.

That's very interesting, Sarah-I.

So could you give examples of such "deep pathology" that the Indian homoeopaths would attempt to cure, and that you (and your UK colleagues) would not ? And why not ?

And do the Indian homoeopaths claim success for such cases ? If they do, why does the rest of the world not adopt their treatments ?

Indian homeopaths would treat people with renal disease, diabetes and perhaps TB.

You only need to read the writings of the very famous Indian homeopath Rajan Sankaran to know that the Indian homeopaths have great success in treating this kind of pathology, as the Indian population as a whole are not as suppressed with other treatments as people in more developed countries.

Unfortunately, homeopaths in the UK just do not get to treat cases such as this.

The rest of the world does know about this and anyone who has taken clinical courses in India will know this. Lots of people go out to India to study and it is a real eye opener for them. The clinics are packed most of the time and Indian homeopaths know their materia medica extremely well and can differentiate between remedies on the stop almost. They need to be able to think on their feet so to speak due to time constraints and the sheer amount of people who come for treatment.

So what would the UK homoeopaths recommend to a patient with any of these illnesses ? And why would the UK homoeopaths not get patients with such illnesses coming to them for treatment ? Would the UK homoeopaths not be able to treat these illnesses ? Why not ?

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Indian subcontinent is not exactly the healthiest place on earth.

Maybe you mean "fortunately" ? In any case, why do UK homoeopaths not get to treat such cases ? What's stopping them ? Is there any legislation that prohibits them ?

So the gold standard for homoeopaths is to study homoeopathy in India ? Seems like it could be a source of much needed income for the country. Moreover, because of the "sheer amount of people who come for treatment", it's surely the place to go for the more altruistic homoeopaths (ah, but I forgot - they don't have the necessary qualifications unless they actually did study in India).

India would still be termed a third world country and I suspect that their access to different types of healthcare is different from the UK. Homeopathy is very popular in India and is lots of people's first port of call, which is why they treat deeper pathology.

Homeopaths is this country don't tend to treat these sorts of cases because they would end up in the hospitals first. I am sure that homeopaths here could treat these sorts of cases however. They would have to take a case and give an individual remedy though.

I know of British homeopaths who have studied in India and have benefitted greatly from it. Others who don't, have the benefit of reading Rajan's many books and lots of homeopaths have adopted his style of case taking, which they find goes to a deeper level.

Training in India is not the 'gold standard' by any means. In fact, when I was at university, I studied with an Indian homeopathic doctor who had already qualified in India and wanted to come over here to study for the BSc (Hons) degree. He did so for three years, as the course taught classical homeopathy and most homeopaths in India practice classically.

I have not been to India myself and have no real desire to, but I have read a lot of Sankaran's books on his methods, which I have found extremely helpful in my own practice.

The fact as I understand is that very few people would opt for homeopathic treatment with these conditions in the UK.
Whereas in India, there is a large group of people that woudl readily opt for homeopathic treatment in these cases.
The treatment is affordable and homeopaths have the confidence to handle them. Also there are homeopathic hospitals with the infrastructure that allows for opinion from MD's when required, and modern medicine intervention of the patient desires it..

Maybe you are also under a false impression that anywhere else on earth may be healthier?
A lot depends on how YOU conduct yourself in India, and also not get brainwashed by what the media/vaccine selling industry/pharmaceutical industry wants to project.

I"m sure there is legislation that prohibits them - how much support does the NHS give?
There is lack of awareness among people that prohibits them.
There is a lack of insurance that prohibits them.
there is a very strong anti-homeopathy gtoup like those who support article in the Lancet that prohibits them.
There is a large money-making industry that wants to sell their drugs instead, that prohibits them.

Sure why not? Why shouldn't India have a gold standard to study homeopathy? DO you have a problem with that?
Who are you suggesting do not have the necessary qualifications? The UK or USA does not recognize the Indian degree anyway ... so local qualifications are necessary.

Since you have given us no identification of who you are BB, this answer is direct - no emotion attached.
I'd suggest through that if you really want to have a healthy exhange on this board for or against any country, you could tell us who you are. Are you a homeopath? Are you qualified?

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

With all due respect, I would like to bring to your kind attention that India is emerging as a great healthcare destination. And we get many patients from across the world, offcourse UK too, who come here for treatment, not just homoeopathy but the allopathic treatment.

So Homoeopathy is not surviving in India (third world) because allopathy is nor developed. Allopathic system is well developed here, but as told our law allows to practice homoeopathy for any ailment as allopathy, We get cases reffered from allopaths & even discarded as there is no scope in allopathy.

Homoeopathy will grow only if we try, So try to get it a legal stand, prove its efficacy.

__________________
Dr.A.Kannan MD(Hom)
www.homoeodoctor.com

Dr Kannan,

My apologies. I could have phrased this a little better and it was not quite meant in the way that it sounded.

Dr Leela,

Need you ask - Blue Bubble is one of our Randiland friends and is not really qualified in anything, let alone homeopathy.

I am not sure whether there is specific legislation to prevent us treating such conditions homeopathically, however, most people do go to conventional medicine first and yes, of course there are articles in the Lancet that don't necessarily help our cause.