In allopathy, new medicines (sources are mostly chemical/synthetic) are constantly being created, tested in test-tubes, sick persons, or animals (rats), and going in and out of market every few years once their side effects (typical examples are of steroids, antibiotics, hormones) become obvious to the general public. How many allopathic drugs of yesterday can be found on the chemists’ shelves today? They all had their day, and their alluring names have faded into oblivion (because they are declared ineffective or dangerous), only to be replaced by newer drugs (now you can judge yourself how scientific allopathy is?).

Homeopathic medicines (prepared from many natural substances such as herbs and minerals) used in the times of Dr. S. Hahnemann (200 yrs back) are used even today because of their efficacy. They have been tried and tested on healthy human beings. They are known, trusted, and reliable.

__________________
http://www.google.com/profiles/Dr.NancyMalik

Science is a method of validating and verifying theories. It has nothing to do with whether you like the results or not.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Scientific Studies



FACT 28: In 2005 World Health Organisation
brought out a draft report which showed
homeopathy was beneficial causing Big Pharma to
panic and the Lancet to bring out an editorial
entitled ‘The End of Homeopathy’.



FACT 29: In 2005 the Lancet tried to destroy
homeopathy but were only looking at 8
inconclusive trials out of 110 of which 102 were
positive. This was a fraudulent analysis.

"The meta-analysis at the centre of the
controversy is based on 110 placebo-controlled
clinical trials of homeopathy and 110 clinical
trials of allopathy (conventional medicine),
which are said to be matched. These were reduced
to 21 trials of homeopathy and 9 of conventional
medicine of ‘higher quality’ and further reduced
to 8 and 6 trials, respectively, which were
‘larger, higher quality’. The final analysis
which concluded that ‘the clinical effects of
homoeopathy are placebo effects’ was based on
just the eight ‘larger, higher quality’ clinical
trials of homeopathy. The Lancet's press release
did not mention this, instead giving the
impression that the conclusions were based on all 110 trials."

<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1375230



FACT 30: There have been many clinical trials
that prove homeopathy works. In the past 24
years there have been more than 180 controlled,
and 118 randomized, trials into homeopathy, which
were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In
each case, the researchers concluded that the
benefits of homeopathy went far beyond that which
could be explained purely by the placebo effect.



FACT 31: The Bristol Homeopathic Hospital
carried out a study published in November 2005 of
6500 patients receiving homeopathic
treatment. There was an overall improvement in
health of 70% of
them.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm>BBC NEWS | England | Bristol | New study is boost to homoeopathy




FACT 32: Homeopathy can never be properly tested
through double blind randomised trials because
each prescription is individualised as every
patient is unique. Therefore 10 people with
arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine.



FACT 33: Homeopathic medicines are not tested on animals.



FACT 34: Homeopathic medicines work even better
on animals and babies than on adults, proving this cannot be placebo.



FACT 35: Scientists agree that if and when
homeopathy is accepted by the scientific
community it will turn established science on its head.

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

scientific studies on homeopathics:

<http://www.vhan.nl/documents/ScientificReportECHNov04.pdf>http://www.vhan.nl/documents/Scienti...rtECHNov04.pdf

Journeys in The Country of The Blind: Entanglement Theory and The Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings -- Milgrom 4 (1): 7 -- Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

<http://www.positivehealth.com/research-list.php?subjectid=134>http://www.positivehealth.com/resear...?subjectid=134
Bully Boys: Doctors continue to push homeopathy out of the NHS

24 May 2007
A small but vociferous group of doctors and scientists seems determined to remove homeopathy from the National Health Service.
The group has written to all the primary health care trusts (PCTs), which govern medical provisions in their area, urging them to stop supplying access to homeopathy, which it describes as ‘crack-pot medicine’.
A similar letter was sent last year by another group, which included a Nobel prize winner and six fellows of the Royal Society.
This war of attrition seems to be working. Several PCTs were convinced by the arguments in the first letter and have stopped offering homeopathy, while the London Homeopathic Hospital says it may have to close because of a downturn in the numbers of NHS patients it’s seeing.
It can hardly be an issue of cost. One PCT spent a mere £60,000 on homeopathy a year before dropping it as an option, while two in London – Hammersmith and Fulham PCTs – between them spent £300,000 on homeopathy last year. These two have also been convinced by the letters, and are planning to remove homeopathy as an option.
Aside from the dubious science the letters’ signatories use, these bully-boy tactics go against the founding spirit of the NHS. In the original blueprint for a free health service, it states that homeopathy should be made available while there are people who want it, and there are doctors who can practise it. Both of these remain the case.


Bullies and myopics, who refuse to consider that any medicine other than theirs could work, are removing consumer choice – and nobody is saying a word because, of course, they are-

doctors and scientists.



(Source: The Guardian, 23 May 2007).

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

Medical research tainted by drug company money

01 October 2000
Medical 'education' companies funded by the pharmaceutical industry are threatening to undermine medical education in the US.
So says a report by the prominent American consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. It is estimated that these companies known as medical education service suppliers (MESS) are now being paid more than one billion US dollars a year to organise educational meetings and programmes, and to prepare educational material for doctors and medical students.

MESS, however, claims that it is simply filling a gap left by a government which won't provide continuing education and educational aids, and meeting the needs of institutions and physicians who dislike having to pay for them.

Public Citizen argues, however, that MESS exists simply to promote drug sales for its backers a claim that seems to be justified. Many MESS openly claim in their marketing material that such educational programmes are good for sales (Lancet, 2000; 356: 494).


****Another recent report suggests that clinical trials funded by drug companies tend to be biased and may even be unethical. ****



The study examined 136 published randomised trials focusing on multiple myeloma (widespread bone marrow tumour), and compared the number whose results favoured new experimental treatments over standard forms of treatment.

At first glance, the studies appeared balanced in terms of their findings, with around half favouring each type of treatment.

But, when the data were reanalysed by funding source, nearly three quarters of the trials funded entirely or in part by the drug industry,

compared with just 26 per cent of those funded by government or non profit organisations, came out in favour of the new experimental treatment under study.

Many of the drug company funded studies also appeared to be conducted purely in order to put some research behind a particular treatment.

This is in opposition to the unwritten medical uncertainty principle that randomised trials should be conducted only if there is substantial uncertainty regarding the relative value of one treatment versus another
(Lancet, 2000; 356; 635-8).

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

Quite frankly, Gina, I'm tired of your spamming threads with quotations trying to make conventional medicine look bad. All I ever see you do is post quites and links; don't you have anything of your own to say?

We might discuss the vices of the medical business (god knows there are plenty), but that is not the subject of this thread, nor is it the subject of most of the other threads you spam.

If I thought the administrators of these forums gave a damn, I would report you, but instead, I'll just ignore your posts. If you should ever have something to say, of your own, and on topic, I'll read it.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

trying to make conventional medicine look bad...............


Thats Funny Hans! No one has to make conventional medicine look bad,It does it all on its own,even without all my posts...........................................


The normal response from defending Homeopathy from skeptics on forums is"show me the link,show me the article- show me the document"........................I waist No time, I get right to the point sorry I am so blunt.
And its not only for your eyes<there are many people reading these homeopathic forums that have been brainwashed by conventional medicine.Anyway MY replies were to Dr. Nancy not You............................................... ..........I was in agreement with her posting.

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

Dear Dr. Nancy
Thought you might enjoy this videoclip;

. Prescription for Disaster is an in-depth investigation into the symbiotic relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care. Prescription for Disaster takes you on a journey through the tangled web of big business, the way disease is treated today, and the consequences we suffer as a society. During this thorough investigation, we take a close look at patented drugs, why they are so readily prescribed by doctors, the role insurance companies and HMO's play in promoting compliance, and the problem of rising health care costs. We examine the marketing and public relations efforts on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, including sales reps, medical journals and conferences. Further, we look at alternatives to traditional pharmacology and drug therapy, such as vitamins and nutritional supplements, and why they are often perceived as a competitive threat to the drug manufacturers. Alternative therapies also include diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle. Watch Prescription for Disaster

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

I think modern medicine should look and evaluate itself in which direction it is going. Why people have started discarding it and moving towards homeopathy?

Prescription drugs causing death

Death by Modern Medicine a book written by Dr. Carolyn Dean MD ND with Trueman Tuck,

__________________
http://www.google.com/profiles/Dr.NancyMalik

Modern medicine is being evaluated all the time. By authorities, insurance companies, doctors, researchers, patients .... And, of course, by proponents of alternative methods.

What makes you conclude that people are moving away from modern medicine?

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>