Friday, 17 December 2010
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Why do Indians entertain such a false and disproven belief as homeopathy at such a mass scale?. Probably, it can be traced to a great extent to abject poverty status in India with as many as 37% population below poverty line.It is the cost of modern treatment which in many cases forces the poor patient to take recourse to "alternative" treatment.However, it is so unfortunate that these poor people should be given false hope by "fake" doctors.The social security system of the country is in a dismal state,people don't have enough money to afford to pay medical insurance premiums and cost of modern drugs and diagnostics procedures is rising rapidly.However, none of these justify the existence of a trap of a fraudulent system of "treatment" which can never offer any relief,to say the least.
Thus on the one hand poor are facing the severest brunt in terms of bad health care by the practice of homeopathy,the rich are being lured into the trap through marketing gimmicks such as "multi-speciality clinics"(see previous post).There is so much on the stake for the people that we need to rise up to ban homeopathy.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Alternative explanations for "cures" :
A variety of alternative explanations have been offered for how homeopathy, if the remedies themselves are ineffective, may appear to cure diseases or alleviate symptoms:
- Unassisted natural healing - time and the body's ability to heal without assistance can eliminate many diseases of their own accord
- Unrecognized treatments - an unrelated food, exercise, environmental agent or treatment for a different ailment, may have occurred
- Regression toward the mean - since many diseases or conditions are cyclical, symptoms vary over time and patients tend to seek care when discomfort is greatest, they may feel better anyway but because the timing of the visit to the homeopath they attribute improvement to the remedy taken
- Nonhomeopathic treatment - patients may also be getting nonhomeopathic care simultaneous with homeopathic treatment, and this is responsible for improvement though a portion or all of the improvement may be attributed to the remedy
- Cessation of unpleasant treatment - often homeopaths recommend patients stop getting conventional treatment such as surgery or drugs, which can cause unpleasant side effects; improvements are attributed to homeopathy when the actual cause is the cessation of the treatment causing side effects in the first place
- Lifestyle changes - homeopaths often recommend diet and exercise, as well as limitations in alcohol or coffee consumption and stress reduction, all of which can increase health and decrease symptoms
- The placebo effect - the intensive consultation process and expectations for the homeopathic preparations can result in the release of endorphins or other body-effecting chemicals which alleviate pain or other symptoms, or otherwise affect an individual's biology
- Psychological healing - the care, concern and reassurance provided by a homeopath as part of the consultation can assure the patient the symptoms are minor and easily treated, or alleviate tension that could exacerbate a preexisting condition. This can be particularly effective when physicians have limited time with the patient or are unable to provide a diagnosis or treatment.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
MPS URGE GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW NHS FUNDING AND MHRA LICENSING OF HOMEOPATHY
In a report published on 22nd February,2010 , the Science and Technology Committee concluded that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concluded that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.
The Committee carried out an evidence check to test if the Government’s policies on homeopathy were based on sound evidence. The Committee found a mismatch between the evidence and policy. While the Government acknowledges there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect (where a patient gets better because of their belief in the treatment), it does not intend to change or review its policies on NHS funding of homeopathy.
The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.
The Committee concluded-given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy-that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified.
In the Committee’s view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.
Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.
The report also examines the MHRA licensing regime for homeopathic products. The Committee is particularly concerned over the introduction of the National Rules Scheme (NRS) in 2006, as it allows medical indications on the basis of study reports, literature and homeopathic provings and not on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) - the normal requirement for medicines that make medical claims.
The MHRA’s user-testing of the label for Arnica Montana 30C-the only product currently licensed under the NRS-was poorly designed, with some parts of the test little more than a superficial comprehension test of the label and other parts actively misleading participants to believe that the product contains an active ingredient.
The product labelling for homeopathic products under all current licensing schemes fails to inform the public that homeopathic products are sugar pills containing no active ingredients. The licensing regimes and deficient labelling lend a spurious medical legitimacy to homeopathic products.
The Chairman of the Committee, Phil Willis MP, said:"It sets an unfortunate precedent for the Department of Health to consider that the existence of a community which believes that homeopathy works is 'evidence' enough to continue spending public money on it. This also sends out a confused message, and has potentially harmful consequences. We await the Government's response to our report with interest.”
When will Indian government wake up to stop the scandal of homeopathy in India??