"First, do no harm" was Hippocrates’ most famous words, and they are particularly important in the care and treatment of infants and children. Most people don’t know it, but most conventional drugs are tested on adults, and then, doctors estimate (or guess-imate) the appropriate dosage for children on such crude measures as a child’s weight. Worst still, in the United States, approximately 20% of pediatric visits lead to a prescription of more than one drug at a time. Once a second drug is given to a child, the doctor is not prescribing based on any research at all because the original research was not conducted with multiple drugs. Further, doctor doesn’t know the interactions of the drugs together.
The fact that so many conventional doctors are experimenting upon our children is truly horrifying, and yet, few people and few doctors are sounding the alarm.
It is quite fascinating that so many children are fearful of their doctor, and I believe that these children are more sensitive and aware of the problems that doctors are creating than we adults realize. It is quite rare for children to experience this same degree of fear when they enter the office of a homeopath.
The number one reason that parents bring their children to a homeopath is because homeopathic medicines are so much safer than conventional medicines.
The second main reason that parents bring their children to homeopaths is that children respond so well to homeopathic medicines. You can really change a child’s life, both physical and psychologically, with the correct homeopathic remedy. And you can help make a parent’s life much easier and much better.
I should also mention that I have a special place in my heart for pediatric care. My father is a pediatrician, and I am a father myself. In preparation for fatherhood, I wrote Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants, which is the most popular guidebook in America for teaching parents how to treat their children with homeopathic medicines.
| November 23rd, 2009 at 2:58 am
Hmmm. I’ve read quite a bit of Mr Ulmann’s stuff. He has a nice style of writing that is very plausible, almost charming.
But no study has shown efficacy beyond placebo where it is a randomised double blind trial. None of the comments above address that.
It’s a bit misleading to say that drugs haven’t been tested to work together. It’s misleading because there are principles of chemistry and biology that are known and will prevent two drugs being prescribed together. A simple example of this is the unwillingness to prescribe mutliple drugs containing aspirin. Pharmacists and doctors are vigilant on this point. Not that mistakes don’t happen. I’m not saying that.
I think it’s a pity that someone who writes as well as Mr Ullman is in his apparent position because I can see why lots of people would fall for the perspective he offers.
I personally do not. And I would encourage any reader to consider the following. A homeopathic “remedy” of 30c or greater contains no molecules of the original substance. The homeopath will tell you that doesn’t matter because the homeopathy works with the “vital force”. An alleged energy field. This doesn’t exist, attractive proposition though it is.
Mumbo jumbo
Hokum pokum
There is a great song in the show “Chicago” called “Give ‘em to old razzle dazzle”
Safe, natural, inexpensive are examples of razzle dazzle where homeopathy is concerned. Safe means “it’s a sugar pill”. Natural means “it’s a sugar pill” and inexpensive means “you have to pay for your own meds therefore you’ll buy this because it’s cheaper”
Anything made of sugar that poses as medicine is terrible value for money and, therefore, expensive.
Sham shame shame on you Mr Ullman for misdirecting your intelligence in this way.
| November 25th, 2009 at 10:58 am
“Andy Wilson” is not your normal concerned person; he is one of the hyper-denialists who IS informed about the body of evidence on homeopathic medicine and who commonly loves to follow me around the internet. He has the sheer audacity to pretend that there is NO research on homeopathy, but he loves providing misinformation. My apologies to the reader.
Here are just a handful of studies and of reviews of research:
Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. (This review of FOUR studies on the homeopathic treatment of people with respiratory allergies includes reference to and description of other studies that were published in the Lancet and the BMJ. Even the BMJ published an editorial that acknowledged that these studies were of a high caliber.)
Vickers AJ. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Reviews. 2007. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/485935. Four treatment trials (N=1,194) found “promising” results from Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza or influenza-like syndrome. Three prevention trials (N=2,265) did not find efficacy of Oscillococcinum in the prevention of these conditions. Because Oscillococcinum is made from the liver & heart of a duck and because ducks are reservoirs of flu viruses, this drug make sense, biologically. It has been used in homeopathy since the 1920s and thus verifies that homeopaths have been knowledgeable of avian sources of flu virus for a long time.
J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., “Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials,” Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. Even critics have called this meta-analysis “completely state of the art.” It reviews 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined criteria for its meta-analysis. Homeopathic medicines had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo. A later paper by Linde noted that newer research has led to “reduced” significance, but Linde never said or even suggested that new research made the evidence non-significant…and in fact, he has asserted otherwise.
J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, “Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy,” British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323. This is the best objective meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies, 81 of which showed efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy.
Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, Endler, C, Muchitsch, I, Schuster, E, Kaye, A. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. This is an impressive study was conducted at the University of Vienna and published in the leading respiratory medicine journal…with substantially significant results in the treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD is the #4 reason that people in the USA die). At present, two different universities are conducted trials to replicate this important study.
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo. People on homeopathic treatment also experienced changes in EEG readings. “Helpfulness from treatment” in homeopathic patients was very significant (P=.004).
| November 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
You said
“Andy Wilson” is not your normal concerned person; he is one of the hyper-denialists who IS informed about the body of evidence on homeopathic medicine and who commonly loves to follow me around the internet. He has the sheer audacity to pretend that there is NO research on homeopathy, but he loves providing misinformation. My apologies to the reader.”
Andy Wilson is my name. There is no need to put it in quotes. It is easy to assess my views from a Google. If you took the trouble to do this you would agree that I have never previously commented upon one of your posts.
I say there is research and plenty of it, but no evidence from randomised controlled trials that it works beyond placebo.
The actual quote is “But no study has shown efficacy beyond placebo where it is a randomised double blind trial. None of the comments above address that.”
In order to be accurate for the readers it is necessary to present the balance of scientific evidence. Since you have taken the trouble to present above the scientific data that you rely upon to support your views perhaps you’d be good enough to clarify, for the reader, which of these studies quoted above represents the balancing view, which goes against your beliefs and how you rationalise that?
Or are they all in favour? Ah….small problem there because that’s not exactly an accurate representation of the available data is it?
“who commonly loves to follow me around the internet”
Are you saying that you agree with the therapeutic indications you reference above, that you recommend the “substances” (doesn’t say what the dilutions are, they could be just water) and the therapeutic indications that ensue? You’re willing to put your reputation and book sales upon that point?
And what is a “hyper denialist”? Oh I oppose your view. I get it. I have made some posts on the internet that oppose homeopathy so I’m a “hyper denialist”? So what are you? A “hyper-homeopath”?
By the way do you succuss your own preparations or does someone else do that for you? Or is it a team effort?
Andy Wilson
Merseyside Skeptics Society
10:23
| December 4th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Nice article. I like your focus on decisions