Prev: Serious birth defects linked to the agricultural chemical atrazine
Next: Homeopathic Clinical Studies
From: Jan Drew on 23 Feb 2010 20:10
22 February 2010
Steve Scrutton, Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
For Immediate Release
Patients' Voice Excluded From Homeopathy Investigation
If you think patients might know about the treatment options that work
for them, a parliamentary committee thinks otherwise. The results of a
called 'evidence check' into the effectiveness of homeopathy have just
released, and they reveal an extraordinarily narrow view of what
'evidence'. For one thing, no one has bothered to ask patients what
experience of homeopathy has been. In fact, the patients' voice has
totally excluded from the investigation! This is strange, because
to the Government White Paper (January 2006) 'Our health, our care,
a new direction for community services,' 'patient centred healthcare'
supposed to be at the heart of NHS delivery. Or is this a commitment
is upheld, only when it's politically expedient?
Recently, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (HoC
were charged to investigate the available evidence in support of the
efficacy of homeopathy. Their survey comprised a combination of
submissions and oral presentations. Now you would think that a
convened committee of this nature, would be keen to access information
every possible source. You might even think that, given the recent
parliamentary expenses scandal, a parliamentary special committee
to conduct its business in an open, transparent and even handed
show that it is using taxpayers' money in a responsible manner. But
would be wrong!
Most of the homeopathy profession were not informed directly that an
was to take place, and only learned of it via the media, with less
days to prepare a submission. Is that a serious way to treat an
check'? The majority of individuals invited to give oral evidence were
the anti homeopathy lobby. Only one practising homeopath was allowed
speak (there are about 2,500 registered homeopaths in the UK), and not
single patient was asked for their view (there are about 6,000,000
using homeopathy in the UK). Does this sound as though the oral
represented a balanced perspective?
But wait, there's more! It has been said that this 'evidence check'
instigated by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, one of homeopathy's
vociferous detractors. Dr Harris belongs to a self appointed pressure
that calls itself 'Sense About Science' (SAS, get it?!!) If you want
the particular allegiance of this group, just take a look at who
SAS's Board of Trustees, and the industries they represent. Did you
that Dr Harris was one of the fourteen members of the S&T Committee?
after the inquiry closed, Dr Harris took part in a very public
against homeopathy. Is this the correct way for an individual in a
privileged and responsible position to behave? Should someone showing
clear bias from the outset, be allowed to sit on a committee of this
One could be forgiven for thinking that our parliamentary process has
hijacked by this influential pressure group, which seems to have
in subverting the S&T Committee into convening a 'kangaroo court' with
one predetermined agenda; to discredit homeopathy.
As Karin Mont, Chair of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths said;
'Millions of patients in the UK know that homeopathy works for them,
they are being totally ignored. Also, we see the most amazing results
homeopathy is used on animals, but this Committee seems intent on
all the supportive evidence with which it has been presented. If
recommendations are acted upon by Government, patients will be denied
choice they have a right to receive within the NHS. In short, if they
afford to pay for their homeopathic treatment privately, they'll have
It appears that hundreds of positive trials, thousands of hospital
a successful mass immunisation programme in Cuba, and a recent pilot
in Northern Ireland, all showing homeopathy to be efficacious and
efficient, don't count as evidence. In fact the conclusions of the
Committee are so one sided, you could ask if they actually read any of
submissions presented to them? The experience of patients obviously
count either, because they weren't even invited to contribute to the
enquiry. This is a sad day for our citizens. It makes a mockery of
scientific enquiry, it brings the democratic process into disrepute,
has the potential to deny patients access to a system of medicine
gentle, safe, effective and cost efficient.
CONTACTS FOR EDITORS
Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
Millbrook, Millbrook Hill, Nutley
East Sussex. TN22 3PJ
Tel: 01825 714506
Registrar and Media Officer
Alliance of Registered Homeopaths.
15 Manitoba Close, Corby,
Northamptonshire. NN18 9HX
Tel: 01536 744520
THE ALLIANCE OF REGISTERED HOMEOPATHS
INFORMATION FOR EDITORS
The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) is a UK professional
organisation that supports and promotes a high standard of safe,
homeopathic practice. It currently represents over 700 practising
We are committed to:
... ensuring that quality homeopathy is available to all who wish to
... raising public awareness of the potential of homeopathic treatment
... encouraging a high standard of education for homeopaths
... supporting the ongoing professional development of our Members
... encouraging co-operation between our Members and other healthcare
professionals, for the benefit of patients
... engaging in research, publishing and other activities that enhance
understanding of homeopathy
... acting as an information base for the general public.
From: Peter B on 23 Feb 2010 21:17
"Jan Drew" <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> 22 February 2010
> Steve Scrutton, Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
> PRESS STATEMENT
> For Immediate Release
> Patients' Voice Excluded From Homeopathy Investigation
Just proven wrong by Peter Parry. All you care about Janet Drew is
spreading lies. That makes you a liar.
Biblically speaking you are a gossip monger, a spreader of lies. You and
only you are accountable for your actions.
The Ten Commandments are a strong part of the SDA, you are guilty of
breaking most all of them, your continued actions shows your
unrepentance and hardened heart. Your guilt will eat you alive.
From: Citizen Jimserac on 23 Feb 2010 23:14
On Feb 23, 5:07 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> john wrote:
> > 22 February 2010
> > Steve Scrutton, Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
> > PRESS STATEMENT
> > For Immediate Release
> > Patients' Voice Excluded From Homeopathy Investigation
> > If you think patients might know about the treatment options that work best
> > for them, a parliamentary committee thinks otherwise. The results of a so
> > called 'evidence check' into the effectiveness of homeopathy have just been
> > released, and they reveal an extraordinarily narrow view of what constitutes
> > 'evidence'. For one thing, no one has bothered to ask patients what their
> > experience of homeopathy has been.
> The way the patient's have a voice is in good peer-reviewed articles
> that show how effective or ineffective homeopathy is.
> Otherwise, all you have is testimonials and anecdotes, which are
> scientifically nearly useless.
On the contrary Jeff, patients are the key to the whole deal - let me
We have here the opportunity to spot one of the things that has gone
wrong in the busted health care systems which are happening in every
The attempt to divorce patients from the evaluative process is part of
an attempt to "scientize" medicine.
that has nothing to do with the pretend excuse of supposedly providing
a sound scientific evidentiary basis of modern medicine. This is
actually a political and fascist attempt for one group and their
allied pharmacological and other special interests to gain control of
medicine and block and discredit opposing approaches, viewpoints and
modalities. As part of that process, GP MD's have gradually been
turned into nothing more than lab interpretation clerks, gradually
losing much of their Doctor to Patient diagnostic skills, palpation
knowledge and, most importantly, humanistic rapport with the
The consequences of that trend can be seen in the enormous suffering
which occurs when people with unusual, unfamiliar, or as yet
unidentified syndromes or diseases get test results back which tell
them they are fine and that nothing is wrong. Or worse, the wrong lab
tests are done because the exact nature of their condition is
different than what is expected. OR worse still, exploratory surgery
which finds nothing. The costs mount as the patient desperately goes
from Doctor to Doctor seeking an answer - sometimes over the course of
YEARS. Is it any wonder at the growing popularity of alternative
medicine and Homeopathy with this playing out?
"Evidence" based medicine? WHAT evidence? Take the average 74 yearr
old patient taking 5 or 10 different drugs every day. Does ANYONE
seriously claim that double blinded studies, long term or short, for
all the possible combinations of those drugs have been done? Same for
The REAL 'evidence' is the same in standard medicine and in Homeopathy
and in Chinese medicine and all the others - the case histories,
clinical reports, and expert opinion and analyses of the practitioners
That is INDUCTIVE, not lab science deductions. And in the case of
Chinese medicine, those recorded inductive experiences exist over a
multi-thousand year period. In the case of Homeopathy, two
centuries. Modern medicine is the newcomer on the block - with many
dramatic life saving techniques and discoveries to be sure, but still
young compared to the others. To dismiss the older systems or demean
their knowledge base is foolhardy and stupid.
The overuse of Antibiotics has already backfired on us and the full
long term consequences of vaccinations have yet to be fully explored
even acknowledging the good that they have done and the protections
So to exclude the patient from the evaluative process is the worst
sort of dehumanization, not to mention bad science.
The delusion that medicine rests entirely on lab science is a
dangerous one. One size fits all mechanized medicine is playing
itself out right now. And people are realizing it and rebelling
From: john on 24 Feb 2010 04:06
"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
> Otherwise, all you have is testimonials and anecdotes, which are
> scientifically nearly useless.
we all know why that is http://www.whale.to/a/anecdotes_h.html
From: dr_jeff on 24 Feb 2010 06:24
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> On Feb 23, 5:07 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> 22 February 2010
>>> Steve Scrutton, Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
>>> PRESS STATEMENT
>>> For Immediate Release
>>> Patients' Voice Excluded From Homeopathy Investigation
>>> If you think patients might know about the treatment options that work best
>>> for them, a parliamentary committee thinks otherwise. The results of a so
>>> called 'evidence check' into the effectiveness of homeopathy have just been
>>> released, and they reveal an extraordinarily narrow view of what constitutes
>>> 'evidence'. For one thing, no one has bothered to ask patients what their
>>> experience of homeopathy has been.
>> The way the patient's have a voice is in good peer-reviewed articles
>> that show how effective or ineffective homeopathy is.
>> Otherwise, all you have is testimonials and anecdotes, which are
>> scientifically nearly useless.
> On the contrary Jeff, patients are the key to the whole deal - let me
> We have here the opportunity to spot one of the things that has gone
> wrong in the busted health care systems which are happening in every
> major country.
> The attempt to divorce patients from the evaluative process is part of
> an attempt to "scientize" medicine.
Wrong. You're acting like science a bad thing. It isn't.
Science is the way we find out what really works.
People are horrible at determining what is causing them to be sick and
what is making them better.
<rest of garbage deleted>