Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Edzard Ernst, M.D., Ph.D., Exeter University's professor of complementary medicine, has published a blistering attack on homeopathy. In a newspaper interview, he stated: "'Homeopathic remedies don't work. . . . Study after study has shown it is simply the purest form of placebo. You may as well take a glass of water than a homeopathic medicine." [McKie R. Professor savages homeopathy. The Observer, Dec 18, 2005]. Ernst's views were also expressed in a medical journal article:
"Homeopathy is a popular but implausible form of medicine. Contrary to many claims by homeopaths, there is no conclusive evidence that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are different from placebos. The benefits that many patients experience after homeopathic treatment are therefore most probably due to nonspecific treatment effects. Contrary to widespread belief, homeopathy is not entirely devoid of risk. Thus, the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies, beyond the beneficial effects of placebos, do not outweigh the potential for harm that this approach can cause." [Ernst E. Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 26:547-548, 2005]
Homeopathy's potential harm-through bad advice-was highlighted by an e-mail investigation in which a colleague of Ernst who pretended to be the mother of a one-year-old child asked 168 homeopaths for advice about giving the MMR vaccine. The 104 respondents were then notified that the query was part of a research project and given the opportunity to withdraw their answers. Thirty-one (40%) of the 77 who remained advised against immunization and only 2 (3%) advised for it. [Schmidt K, Ernst E. Aspects of MMR: Survey shows that some homeopaths and chiropractors advise against MMR. British Medical Journal 325:597, 2002]
This study has just appeared on the use of complementary medicine in Australia: The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: costs and beliefs in 2004
MJA 2006; 184 (1): 27-31
Quote:
Objective: To survey the use, cost, beliefs and quality of life of users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
Design: A representative population survey conducted in 2004 with longitudinal comparison to similar 1993 and 2000 surveys.
Participants: 3015 South Australian respondents over the age of 15 years (71.7% participation).
Results: In 2004, CAMs were used by 52.2% of the population. Greatest use was in women aged 25–34 years, with higher income and education levels. CAM therapists had been visited by 26.5% of the population. In those with children, 29.9% administered CAMs to them and 17.5% of the children had visited CAM therapists. The total extrapolated cost in Australia of CAMs and CAM therapists in 2004 was AUD$1.8 billion, which was a decrease from AUD$2.3 billion in 2000. CAMs were used mostly to maintain general health. The users of CAM had lower quality-of-life scores than non-users. Among CAM users, 49.7% used conventional medicines on the same day and 57.2% did not report the use of CAMs to their doctor. About half of the respondents assumed that CAMs were independently tested by a government agency; of these, 74.8% believed they were tested for quality and safety, 21.8% for what they claimed, and 17.9% for efficacy.
Conclusions: Australians continue to use high levels of CAMs and CAM therapists. The public is often unaware that CAMs are not tested by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for efficacy or safety.
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
The Nov 17 Issue of The Lancet carried this: Pressure grows against homoeopathy in the UK The Lancet 2007; 370:1677-1678
Quote:
Health service funding is being stopped for some of the UK's homoeopathic hospitals, following an active campaign by doctors and scientists. Does this signal the beginning of the end of homoeopathy on the UK's National Health Service? Udani Samarasekera reports.
Homoeopaths in the UK have been feeling under pressure lately. Unfortunately for them, however, the cause of their anxiety is not a heavy workload but an active campaign against homoeopathy, particularly its availability in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Over the past 2 years, journalists, doctors, and scientists, who point to the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of homoeopathy, have publicly voiced their criticisms.
The latest subject to irk antihomoeopathy campaigners is a symposium on the role of homoeopathy in HIV/AIDS treatment that is taking place in London on Dec 1, organised by the Society of Homeopaths—the largest organisation representing lay homoeopaths in Europe. “The symposium will be looking at different methods and approaches that appear to be having some success in helping with the symptoms of HIV/AIDS”, say the organisers. Michael Baum, professor emeritus of surgery at University College London and frequent critic of homoeopathy, thinks that homoeopaths are getting over-confident. “People say homoeopathy cannot do any harm but when it is being promoted for HIV then there is a serious problem”, he says.
Baum is not alone in his concern about the potential dangers of homoeopathy. Last year, an undercover investigation by charity Sense About Science, showed that the first ten homoeopathic clinics and pharmacies selected from an internet search and consulted were willing to provide homoeopathic pills to protect against malaria and other tropical diseases such as typhoid, dengue fever, and yellow fever. “Making false claims about treating colds is one thing but it is quite another thing to make false claims about malaria”, says David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College London.
Both Colquhoun and Baum are among a group of doctors and scientists who, last May, sent a letter to Primary Care Trusts (the local bodies that pay for NHS care) in the UK to raise their concerns about the use of homoeopathy on the NHS. “It is an implausible treatment for which over a dozen systematic reviews have failed to produce convincing evidence of effectiveness”, they wrote. Baum says that the group have received a lot of criticism for issuing the letter and have even been accused of colluding with the pharmaceutical industry over their antihomoeopathy campaign. “But”, he says, “the reason that we started this campaign was out of a sense of despair over a malaise in society, a flight from rationalism”.....
and this Editorial: Benefits and risks of homoeopathy
Quote:
Five large meta-analyses of homoeopathy trials have been done. All have had the same result: after excluding methodologically inadequate trials and accounting for publication bias, homoeopathy produced no statistically significant benefit over placebo.1–5 And yet homoeopathy can still be clinically useful.
During the cholera epidemic in the 19th century, death rates at the London Homoeopathic Hospital were three times lower than those at the Middlesex Hospital.6 The reason for homoeopathy's success in this epidemic is even more interesting than the placebo effect. At the time, nobody could treat cholera, and while medical treatments such as blood-letting were actively harmful, the homoeopaths' treatments were at least inert.
Similarly, modern medicine can offer little for conditions such as many types of back pain, stress at work, medically unexplained fatigue, and most common colds. Going through a theatre of medical treatment, and trying every drug in the book, will only elicit side-effects. An inert pill in these circumstances seems a sensible option.
However, just as homoeopathy has unexpected benefits, so it can have unexpected side-effects. The very act of prescribing a pill carries its own risks: medicalisation, reinforcement of counterproductive illness behaviours, and promotion of the idea that a pill is an appropriate response to a social problem, or a modest viral illness.
Similarly, when a health-care practitioner of any description prescribes a pill which they know is no more effective than placebo—without disclosing that fact to their patient—then they disregard both informed consent and their patient's autonomy. Some could argue that this cost is acceptable, but such old-fashioned paternalism can ultimately undermine the doctor–patient relationship.
There are also more concrete harms. A routine feature of homoeopaths' marketing practices is to denigrate mainstream medicine. One study found that half of all homoeopaths who were approached advised patients against the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine for their children.7 A television news investigation found that almost all homoeopaths who were approached recommended ineffective homoeopathic prophylaxis for malaria, undermined medical prophylaxis, and did not even give simple advice on bite prevention.8 Undermining medicine is a wise commercial decision for homoeopaths, because survey data show that a disappointing experience with mainstream medicine is one of the few features to regularly correlate with a decision to use alternative therapies. But it might not be a responsible choice.
Homoeopaths can undermine public-health campaigns; leave their patients exposed to fatal diseases; and, in the extreme, miss or disregard fatal diagnoses. There have also been cases of patients who died after medically trained homoeopaths advised them to stop medical treatments for serious medical conditions.9,10
All these problems have been exacerbated by society's eagerness to endorse the healing claims of homoeopaths, and by the lack of a culture of critical self-appraisal in alternative medicine. Publication bias in alternative therapy journals is high: in 2000, only 5% of studies published in complementary or alternative health journals were negative.11 To my knowledge, the ethical issues of autonomy and placebo have never been discussed. Homoeopaths routinely respond to negative meta-analyses by cherry-picking positive studies. An observational study,12 which amounts to little more than a customer-satisfaction survey, has been promoted13 as if it trumps a string of randomised trials.
Homoeopaths can misrepresent scientific evidence freely to an unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate public, but in doing so they undermine the public understanding of what it means to have an evidence base for a treatment. This approach seems particularly egregious when academics are working harder than ever to engage the wider public in a genuine understanding of research,14 and when most good doctors try to educate and involve their patients in the selection of treatment options.
Every criticism I have made could be managed with clear and open discussion of the problems. But homoeopaths have walled themselves off from academic medicine, and critique has been all too often met with avoidance rather than argument. The Society of Homeopaths (in Europe) has even threatened to sue bloggers,15 and the university courses on alternative medicine which I and others have approached have flatly refused to provide basic information, such as what they teach and how.16 It is hard to think of anything more unhealthy.
To ban homoeopathy would be an over-reaction, as placebos could have a clinical role. However, whether the placebo effect is best harnessed by homoeopaths will remain questionable until these ethical issues and side-effects have been addressed.
Which promted this article in Chiropractic Economics: Lancet article slams homeopathy and causes stir
Quote:
An article that appeared in the Nov. 16 issue of Lancet, the British medical journal, has caused an uproar in the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) arena. Homeopathy and other forms of CAM have been under attack in Britain for some time.
The article, titled “Benefits and Risks of Homeopathy,” suggests the results from five large meta-analyses on homeopathy show no statistically significant benefit when compared to placebo.
The Faculty of Homeopathy, which is part of the British Homeopathic Association, said in a letter:
“The Faculty of Homeopathy welcomes balanced reporting and discussion of homeopathy. However, the article ‘Pressure grows against homeopathy in the UK’ and the accompanying Commentary in this week’s Lancet (16 Nov.) are good examples of how those opposed to homeopathy are creating a climate that stifles the very discussion and debate they claim to want.
“Patients around the world experience tangible benefit from homeopathic treatment and have done so for over 200 years. The Faculty of Homeopathy believes it is essential that all those practising homeopathy are properly trained and regulated. The General Medical Council regulates the practice of our doctor membership. An equivalent system must apply to nonmedical homeopaths in order to protect patients and set high standards for responsible practice.
“But even more crucially, we need to ensure that patients are given a choice so that they can give informed consent to the treatment most appropriate to their needs. This will only happen if homeopathy continues to be properly integrated into our healthcare system….”
The Boiron Group, a manufacturer of homeopathic remedies, disputed the commentary. In a press release, it said, “(The) author has misinterpreted results of clinical trials on homeopathic medicines. … A thorough review of the studies’ research evidence indicates positive principle conclusions in favor of homeopathy over placebo.”
and this Press Release:
Nov 27, 2007 19:46 ET Boiron Laboratories Disputes British Journal's Editorial on Homeopathy
Quote:
In its continued educational and research efforts for the advancement of homeopathy, Boiron Laboratories disputes an editorial comment published in The Lancet's Nov. 17, 2007 issue on the basis that its author has misinterpreted results of clinical trials on homeopathic medicines. (1-5)
The British medical journal features an editorial by Ben Goldacre on the "Benefits and Risks of Homeopathy." In his commentary, Goldacre suggests that the results from five large meta-analyses indicate that homeopathy produces no statistically significant benefit over placebo.
However, a thorough review of the studies' research evidence indicates positive principle conclusions in favor of homeopathy over placebo as quoted as follows:
1. The Kleijnen, et al(1) study states that "the evidence of clinical
trials is positive but not sufficient to draw any definite
conclusions."
2. The Boissel, et al(2) study reports that "[f]or 17 retained
comparisons, for each method used, the result is a p-value well below
.0001. This means that in at least one test, the null hypothesis (lack
of effect of homeopathy) must be rejected. ... The number of
significant results is not likely due to chance alone."
3. The Linde, et al(3) study concludes that "[t]he results of the
available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has
an effect over placebo."
4. The Cucherat, et al(4) study concludes that "[t]here is evidence that
homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo."
5. The Shang, et al(5) study indicates that "21 (19 percent) homeopathic
trials and nine (8 percent) conventional medicine tests were of higher
quality. Most odds ratios indicated a beneficial effect of the
intervention. Heterogeneity of trial results was less pronounced for
homeopathy ... than conventional medicine .... This difference is
unlikely to be due to chance (p=0.011 by F test)."
Additionally, there is a sixth relevant meta-analysis(6) also published in The Lancet that supports positive results for homeopathy, but was not mentioned in Goldacre's commentary. The study authors concluded that "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to a placebo effect."
About Boiron: Boiron, world leader in homeopathy, is a $500 million public company with 3,800 employees in more than 60 countries. It produces more than 1,500 homeopathic medicines. For over 70 years, Boiron has been committed to funding scientific research and educating the public and healthcare professionals on homeopathic medicines. Boiron maintains the highest manufacturing standards, complying with U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations, the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States and drug Good Manufacturing Practices.
References
1. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy.
BMJ 1991; 302: 316-23.
2. Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Haugh M, Gauthier E. Critical literature review
on the effectiveness of homoeopathy: overview of data from homeopathic
medicine trials. Brussels, Belgium: Homoeopathic Medicine Research
Group. Report to the European Commission. 1996; 195-210.
3. Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized
homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Alter Complement Med 1998;
4: 371-88.
4. Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of clinical
efficacy of homeopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur JClin
Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27-33.
5. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects
of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled
trials of homeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet 2005; 366: 726-32.
6. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez H, et al. Are the clinical effects of
homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled
trials. The Lancet 1997; 350: 834-43.
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
The BBC are reporting: NHS trusts 'reject homoeopathy'
Quote:
NHS primary care trusts are slashing funding for homeopathic treatment amid debate about its efficacy and the drive to cuts costs, a study has suggested.
More than a quarter have stopped or cut funding for such services, research by the GP magazine Pulse has found.
The Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, the country's largest, confirms it has lost eight contracts in a year and referrals are down by 20%.
High-profile critics of homoeopathy welcomed the development.
The controversy over the therapy has been raging for years.
It is based on the principle of treating like with like, so someone with an allergy who was using homeopathic medicines would attempt to beat it with an ultra-diluted dose of an agent that would cause the same symptoms.
But while patients often report that it makes them feel much better, clinical evidence that it works is lacking, and some scientists argue the solution is so diluted it does not contain any active ingredients at all.
The investigation into 132 primary care trusts found only 37% still have contracts for homoeopathic services and referrals are decreasing.
The clinical director of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, which last year warned it may have to start charging patients, said he was nonetheless confident it would survive.
"For one, there's a lot of public and political support," said Dr Peter Fisher, adding that in any event homoeopathy comprised only 40% on the services on offer, which included nutritional medicine and relaxation techniques.
A spokesperson from the Faculty of Homeopathy, which represents doctors, said the centres in the UK offering such treatment provided good value for money. ....
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
Quackwatch are reporting: Research insider blasts "CAM" as worthless.
Quote:
R. Barker Bausell, Ph.D., who served for five years as research
director of the University of Maryland's NIH-funded Complementary
Medicine Program (now called the Center for Integrated Medicine), has
bared the absurdities and lack of research support for "complementary
and alternative" methods. After stating why "CAM" research should be
regarded skeptically, he dissects the published evidence and
concludes:
"No CAM therapy has a scientifically plausible biochemical mechanism
of action over and above those proposed for the placebo effect. Of
course, just because there is no rational explanation for why
something should benefit a medical condition or reduce a medical
symptom doesn't mean that this something can't do so. Unfortunately,
the results from high-quality, randomized, placebo-controlled trials
and systematic reviews have demonstrated that CAM therapies don't do
so, which regretfully leads me to conclude that CAM therapies are
nothing more than cleverly packaged placebos. And that is almost all
there is to say about the science of CAM."
Bausell's "Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Alternative and
Complementary Medicine,"
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsBot
Quackwatch are reporting: Research insider blasts "CAM" as worthless.
I went to quackwatch to see what forms of CAM they consider worthless. It seems that everyone is considered worthless.
I was surprised to find out that herbal medicines are considered worthless. Herbs are the basis of most of our common drugs, so to say they can't do anything seems biased.
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
Ant The Times is reporting today:
Quote:
On Saturday night, perhaps for the first time in history, there was a round of applause at the announcement of a hospital closure. I was speaking at a seminar organised by Skeptics in the Pub, and I had just explained that the Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital is due to close next year because of a huge drop in the number of referrals.
Nobody in the audience was belittling the suffering of those patients who would be deprived of homoeopathic treatment, but instead they were endorsing the fact that the money saved would be spent on more effective treatments.
It was good to be back among friendly sceptics after a week of attacks from homoeopaths. I have just co-written a book that assesses the safety and efficacy of dozens of alternative therapies - our book concludes that a few therapies can indeed help patients, but homoeopathy is not one of them, because there is no real evidence to suggest that it acts as anything except a placebo. There have been more than 200 trials investigating homoeopathy and the overall result is that its remedies are utterly bogus.
There is no reason why homoeopathy should work. According to homoeopaths “like cures like”, so pollen supposedly can cure hay fever. In order to transform it into a cure, the pollen is diluted over and over again until there is nothing left of the original pollen. The resulting solution is then used to create a pill, which therefore contains no active ingredient whatsoever. Homoeopaths readily admit that this is the case, because they claim that it is the “memory” of the pollen that cures patients.
Homoeopathy for colds or bruises is relatively harmless, because all that happens is that you recover after just seven days instead of taking a whole week. The problem, however, is that many homoeopaths will claim to be able to treat everything from malaria to HIV. If you still harbour any sympathies that homoeopathy is a form of medicine that can treat such serious conditions, then perhaps the absurdity of homoeopathy will become apparent if you think about one of its treatments, namely a flu remedy called Oscillococcinum.
Each year a homoeopathic company called Boiron kills a muscovy duck and then extracts its heart and liver. This is then repeatedly diluted to create the entire world's supply of the flu remedy that generates sales of more than $20 million. There is no reason why a duck's heart and liver should cure flu, particularly when it is so diluted that the resulting pills contain no extract of duck. This has to be the ultimate quack remedy.
Simon Singh is the co-author of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
Quote:
Each year a homoeopathic company called Boiron kills a muscovy duck and then extracts its heart and liver. This is then repeatedly diluted to create the entire world's supply of the flu remedy that generates sales of more than $20 million. There is no reason why a duck's heart and liver should cure flu, particularly when it is so diluted that the resulting pills contain no extract of duck. This has to be the ultimate quack remedy.
Love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsBot
Quackwatch are reporting:
Research insider blasts "CAM" as worthless.
I went to quackwatch to see what forms of CAM they consider worthless. It seems that everyone is considered worthless.
I was surprised to find out that herbal medicines are considered worthless. Herbs are the basis of most of our common drugs, so to say they can't do anything seems biased.
Makes you wonder about the rest of the stuff on the site.
The thing is, to use your example of statins, when a piece of solid research shows a positive outcome the modality ceases to be considered "CAM". CAM is, by definition, stuff for which no such evidence exists!
If a herb contains a theraputic effective component then this will be apparent in trials.
And regardless, it cannot be considered "worthless" because placebos have value. But what Dr Barker actually SAID was that
Quote:
these treatments, CAM therapies, are nothing more than cleverly packaged placebos
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertisaacs
The thing is, to use your example of statins, when a piece of solid research shows a positive outcome the modality ceases to be considered "CAM". CAM is, by definition, stuff for which no such evidence exists!
If a herb contains a theraputic effective component then this will be apparent in trials.
And regardless, it cannot be considered "worthless" because placebos have value. But what Dr Barker actually SAID was that
I rather like quackwatch.
Regards
Robert
Robert,
I am having a difficult time following your reasoning.
Red rice yeast had issues because it contained the exact chemicals as drugs, not because of trials. So your standard for evidence does not exist.
You say if something works it is not CAM, therefore all CAM is ineffective. The problem with this reasoning, is that all herbal medicine is considered CAM, not whether the herb works or not. Just read your Quackwatch.
Do you wonder about the coincidences that certain herbs have been used for centuries for a certain effect without trials, and the drug that is used for the same purpose is derived from the same herb? For instance Belladona is used as a mydriatic, and Atropine which is one of the Belladonna alkaloids is also a mydriatic. There were no studies on Belladonna, but it worked, or do you doubt it? (By the way if you read quackwatch, you will see that this reasoning is number 5 of the Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science).
Correct my reasoning if I am wrong: Chemical A causes a specific reaction, then chemical A will cause the same specific reaction. Atropine is Atropine. Statins are statins. The trials came many years after these herbs were used medicinally, so that does not mean that the herbs did not work before that time.
I think that there are two ways of looking at the information. 1. No trials were done to prove something, therefore it doesn't work; or 2. No trials were done, so we don't know whether something works. It seems as if you are using #1 for your reasoning. I am using #2.
By the way, I don't use herbal medicine in my practice. (except for black tea soaks).
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
The trials came many years after these herbs were used medicinally, so that does not mean that the herbs did not work before that time.
I think that there are two ways of looking at the information. 1. No trials were done to prove something, therefore it doesn't work; or 2. No trials were done, so we don't know whether something works. It seems as if you are using #1 for your reasoning. I am using #2.
Mark Crislip MD from the excellent Quackcast podcast http://www.quackcast.com covers herbal remedies in episode 13 of this highly recommended podcast.
Some herbs do contain active pharmacological agents, but how do you determine dosage? how do you know if the herb is from a reputable source? do you trust it isnt contaminated? Pharmaceutical companies have made a significant amount of money discovering what the active ingredients are and how they work and safe effective dosage. If a herb works the drug derived from it will work better.
I think i will stick to an asprin pill and not chew on some willow bark.
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
Mark Crislip MD from the excellent Quackcast podcast http://www.quackcast.com covers herbal remedies in episode 13 of this highly recommended podcast.
Chris, thank you for your reply. I tried to get the podcast, but I couldn't. I did look at the references. The first and only one I checked out was:
Ginkgo for memory enhancement: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA. 2002 Aug 21;288(7):835-40.
I knew that I had read that Ginko had been shown to be helpful. So I found this site from the Mayo Clinic, which is probably the most respected medical instituion in the US. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gin...patient-ginkgo
If you were to compare the study quoted by quackwatch to the synopsis by the Mayo clinic, you will find that the study was done on an area that does not have much evidence, and the evidence shows that at the dosage used, it is too small to be effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
Some herbs do contain active pharmacological agents, but how do you determine dosage?
how do you know if the herb is from a reputable source? do you trust it isnt contaminated?
When you send a patient to a vascular surgeon, how do you know he is competent? In both cases, I think you need to find out. Going to herbal seminars will give you a familiarity of the knowledge and intergrity of the herbal companies and their consultants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
Pharmaceutical companies have made a significant amount of money discovering what the active ingredients are and how they work and safe effective dosage. If a herb works the drug derived from it will work better.
If you remember pharmacology, there are several drugs which are based on one herb (a class), but there are many herbs that there are no classes of drugs (cholegogues, immune modulators, emmagogues, etc.) At the herbal medicine seminars, they discuss the different constituents and actions of each herb, without the assistance of the vast sums of pharmaceutical money discovering the active ingredient. Drug companies will take the active ingredient, make changes to it, and then patent the drug, so they can charge high prices. As far as safe and effective dose, herbs have different constituents that modulate the effects, so as to balance, rather than to surpress or stimulate, so that there is greater safety in a majority of herbs. The chemical alteration of the active ingredient of the herbs result in a more toxic chemical that is harder for the liver to metabolize. Just look at all the drugs that have been taken off the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
I think i will stick to an asprin pill and not chew on some willow bark.
Just be careful. More people die of stomach bleeds each year due to NSAIDS, then die from AIDS. While you are at it, keep away from the NSAIDS that have been taken off the market: Zomax, Duract, Bextra and Vioxx. Also make sure you do not prescribe the safe antifungal Nizoral for your patients with mycotic nails.
Chris, I don't prescribe herbals, but I need to know more about them than my patients who come in and ask me questions about them, or are on them prior to surgery.
It sees that you have changed the discussion from herbals are useless, to herbals are something I am not familiar with, therefore since drugs are easier to prescribe, they are superior. Is that how you see it?
Another CAM thing that is interesting is colored light therapy. It is said to be quackery, but my daughter was born with jaundice and they gave her a blanket that had green lights. Seems to be another contradiction. Does anyone know how the lights eliminate the jaundice?
Thanks for the links i will give them a good looking over.
When you send a patient to a vascular surgeon, how do you know he is competent? In both cases, I think you need to find out. Going to herbal seminars will give you a familiarity of the knowledge and intergrity of the herbal companies and their consultants.
When i refer patients on to other healthcare professionals i know they have had rigorous training and thanks to peer review and continued professional education i can trust they will have attained required levels of education. I do however have reason to be suspicious of herbal companies and practitioners who are trying to make profits. I dont doubt some individuals have great intergrity and truly believe in what they are doing, but i intergrity and belief do not equal effective medicine.
If you remember pharmacology, there are several drugs which are based on one herb (a class), but there are many herbs that there are no classes of drugs (cholegogues, immune modulators, emmagogues, etc.) At the herbal medicine seminars, they discuss the different constituents and actions of each herb, without the assistance of the vast sums of pharmaceutical money discovering the active ingredient. Drug companies will take the active ingredient, make changes to it, and then patent the drug, so they can charge high prices.
Am i correct that you see this as a bad thing? The price reflects to process of isolation and testing that these drugs have to go through which can take many years and cost an awful lot of money. Of course profits have to be made but these do help with further r and d.
As far as safe and effective dose, herbs have different constituents that modulate the effects, so as to balance, rather than to surpress or stimulate, so that there is greater safety in a majority of herbs. Has there been testing to prove this? is the dosage received from the herb standardised? is there proof of the effect other than anecdotal?
The chemical alteration of the active ingredient of the herbs result in a more toxic chemical that is harder for the liver to metabolize. And testing is carried out to establish toxicity levels and dosage levels.
Just look at all the drugs that have been taken off the market. And look at all the drugs which are on the market that work as stated and save countless lives as a result!
Just be careful. More people die of stomach bleeds each year due to NSAIDS, then die from AIDS. While you are at it, keep away from the NSAIDS that have been taken off the market: Zomax, Duract, Bextra and Vioxx. Also make sure you do not prescribe the safe antifungal Nizoral for your patients with mycotic nails.
Chris, I don't prescribe herbals, but I need to know more about them than my patients who come in and ask me questions about them, or are on them prior to surgery. I dont prescribe them either and i agree that we should be informed of the range of CAM's that are out there, and the more informed i become the more against them i become.
It sees that you have changed the discussion from herbals are useless, to herbals are something I am not familiar with, therefore since drugs are easier to prescribe, they are superior. Is that how you see it? NO. Let me clarify my position. I am familiar with a great deal of CAM's, i feel it is my responsibility to be educated on these matters. The vast majority of CAM's offer nothing more than placebo effects at best and at worst offer nothing but risk. The risk comes not only from the product the patient is taking to the attitude of the people treating them ie the number of chiropractors who are strongly anti-vaccine. The pharmaceutical product my patients are prescribed have been through stringent testing regimes and are proven to work but multiple studies on them. To return to the original topic of homeopathy the better designed and independent studies show no effect, modern medicine is not dogmatic, if something doesnt work or does not have the desired effects or outcomes then protocols are changed. CAM's are strongly dogmatic reject criticism and negative studies and they continue doing the same things now that have always been done.
Another CAM thing that is interesting is colored light therapy. It is said to be quackery, but my daughter was born with jaundice and they gave her a blanket that had green lights. Seems to be another contradiction. Does anyone know how the lights eliminate the jaundice?
Actually the mechanism of this is very well understood. The specific wavelength of green light isomerises bilirubin (the chemical responsible for jaundice) into byproducts that can be easily excreted by the body. It is physics not quackery.
The quack aspect comes in when it is claimed "that a therapist trained in chromotherapy can use colour and light to balance energy wherever our bodies are lacking, be it physical, emotional, spiritual, or mental" When you here the word energy in relation to any CAM be very very skeptical. It is the height of nonsense.
Re: Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
When i refer patients on to other healthcare professionals i know they have had rigorous training and thanks to peer review and continued professional education i can trust they will have attained required levels of education. I do however have reason to be suspicious of herbal companies and practitioners who are trying to make profits. I dont doubt some individuals have great intergrity and truly believe in what they are doing, but i intergrity and belief do not equal effective medicine.
Since herbal medicine is not regulated, there is always a question of the training of the individual. The American herbalist guild is an organization that hopes to help in making sure that the members are competent. http://www.americanherbalistsguild.com/
There is a similar organization in the UK which I am not familiar with: http://www.nimh.org.uk/
You seem concerned about the profits that are made in medicine. Herbalists are not highly paid. Drug companies, on the other hand, are rather highly compensated. Lamisil in the US was $1200 for a 3 month prescription. Now that it is generic, it can be obtained for $12. There is $1188 in profit for a drug that was in Europe for 10 years prior to coming to the states. In a previous post you mentioned the cost of doing research to substantiate the cost of the drugs. I was up one night watching C-span, and they had congressional hearings into the cost of drugs. Part of the development cost of the drugs includes the cost of the warehouses and the trucks to deliver them. Also drug companies trade research, that is Company A will pay Company B $1,000,000 dollars for research on its drug, and Company B will pay Company A $1,000,000 for research on its drug, even though no research was done. All this does is increase the cost of the drug’s development by $1,000,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
Just look at all the drugs that have been taken off the market. And look at all the drugs which are on the market that work as stated and save countless lives as a result!
To be fair, we should look deeper at the side effects of the herbs that we hear about. When there is a problem, it makes the news. Most of the time, the person is taking conventional medication along with the herb to give the same effect, so they are overdosing themselves. The real answer is to make herbalists (and all others that have passed a rigorous training program) licensed and they should be the only ones that can prescribe the herbs. Obviously, some (tonic herbs) herbs should be allowed to be sold over the counter. Remember that Ibuprofen is sold over the counter, and: Upper GI ulcers, gross bleeding, or perforation caused by NSAIDs occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months, and in about 2-4% of patients treated for one year. These trends continue with longer duration of use, increasing the likelihood of developing a serious GI event at some time during the course of therapy.([url]http://www.drugs.com/pro/ibuprofen.html[/url])
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
I dont prescribe them either and i agree that we should be informed of the range of CAM's that are out there, and the more informed i become the more against them i become.
We are on the same page on this, except I find that there is some good in CAM’s. I don’t know all the answers on this, but the more I investigate the more good I find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
Let me clarify my position. I am familiar with a great deal of CAM's, i feel it is my responsibility to be educated on these matters. The vast majority of CAM's offer nothing more than placebo effects at best and at worst offer nothing but risk. The risk comes not only from the product the patient is taking to the attitude of the people treating them ie the number of chiropractors who are strongly anti-vaccine. The pharmaceutical product my patients are prescribed have been through stringent testing regimes and are proven to work but multiple studies on them. To return to the original topic of homeopathy the better designed and independent studies show no effect, modern medicine is not dogmatic, if something doesnt work or does not have the desired effects or outcomes then protocols are changed. CAM's are strongly dogmatic reject criticism and negative studies and they continue doing the same things now that have always been done.
I have looked at the same things you have and arrived at the opposite conclusion. This leads to a good discussion, and hopefully we can find what the right answer is. When I find something contradictory it raises a red flag, and we have this when it comes to vaccinations. We are told that the homeopaths good results during the cholera epidemic were because the homeopaths did not do as much damage as the medical doctors of the time. We are also told that the diseases that we vaccinate children for are very serious. Somehow, I think that cholera is more deadly than chicken pox. Also remember the scare about the avian flu because it is a completely different strain, and it will be just as deadly as the 1917 flu? I remember reading that the homeopaths did quite well with that flu also.
There are many questions about vaccinations that need to be answered. The biggest one for me is if the immune system does not develop until 6 months of age and we inject an antigen in a 2 month old child with no working immune system, then what happens? Other questions are why do we inject live vaccines into children, knowing full well that this can cause a disease (The biggest cause of polio right now is vaccinations).
Regarding the efficacy of homeopathic remedies, the best place to find out if these can do anything at all would be with animal studies rather than on humans, so we can eliminate the placebo argument. I looked in Google, and I found this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1475939.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
Actually the mechanism of this is very well understood. The specific wavelength of green light isomerises bilirubin (the chemical responsible for jaundice) into byproducts that can be easily excreted by the body. It is physics not quackery.
The quack aspect comes in when it is claimed "that a therapist trained in chromotherapy can use colour and light to balance energy wherever our bodies are lacking, be it physical, emotional, spiritual, or mental" When you here the word energy in relation to any CAM be very very skeptical. It is the height of nonsense.
I like to think that some of the CAM therapies came out before science was advanced enough to explain it. I know the first use of light therapy was done by the Egyptians, and in the modern era, the 1870’s. The corpuscular theory of light was not yet invented by Einstein, so any attempts to explain it were a myth. It seems that in today’s time, the unfamiliarity with higher physics limits the explanation, but not the fact that light (in the case of Jaundice) works.
Just because the ancient Greeks thought that Apollo was crossing the sky in his chariot, does not mean the earth doesn’t rotate to give the image of the sun crossing the sky. The wavelength you talk that isomerizes bilirubin is a frequency and has a quanta of energy associated with it. So in effect the green light is adding energy to the patient. The question is whether the body is lacking this frequency, or whether the frequency is just a tool in isomerising the bilirubin. There is no way to know, but the myth fits. The key is not to focus on the imprecise language or explanation, but rather to find if something works and how to apply it. In this case we see that a certain frequency is used to help a certain medical condition. What other conditions can be helped by certain frequencies? One that we know of is psoriasis, which is helped by UV light. But how many others are there?
Complementary medicine researcher slams homeopathy
Linear Mode
