Giving a lecture on old-timey quack medicines tomorrow

[Ya Basta]

153. LOL.. Ha ha!

This will be my last post on this.

If homeopathic medicine was nothing more than snake oil or witchcraft, then why does the pharmaceutical industry employ botanists and other scientists to research the efficacy of natural substances so that they can then find a way to synthesize it or extract a component? The answer is because nature has had billions of years of natural selection to create these substances to fight off and defend against many pathogens and illnesses.

If homepathic medicines were ever standardized and serious clinical studies done to ascertain most effective protocols the pharmaceutical industry as well as the rest of the health-care industry would be gravely at risk of losing many billions of dollars since homeopathic medicines can't be patented, are sold over the counter and are without the nasty and dangerous side-effects common with many allopathic drugs. This is the crux of the matter and the basis why we see the medical industry shun homeopathic medicine. Its about the money and they don't want the competition.

Clinical trials cost money and since no patents can be issued for natural cures, there's little to no incentive from the medical industry to pay for clinical trials. But if you can synthesize it or extract a component such as we see for example with sativex and marinol in an attempt to patent marijuana therapy (there are hundreds of other examples). Then not only is there now financial incentive to regard the efficacy of a natural substance. But also we see financial incentive to discredit the use of these substance in their natural form for which there is also efficacy. Especially since they usually come without all the side-effects as we see with many allopathic drugs. Again, the health-care industry does not want any competition.

Clinical trials for substances need approval from the FDA. However there's a cozy financial conflict of interest between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. In the cancer videos I posted above it shows proof this conflict of interest is used against natural substance's efficacy from being recognized. Again, the health-care industry does not want any competition.

--

the guardian

Scientists are supposed to make unprejudiced observations, then draw conclusions. As I thought about this, I was left with the highly uncomfortable conclusion that homeopathy appeared to have worked. I had to find out more.

So, I started reading about homeopathy, and what I discovered shifted my world for ever. I became convinced enough to hand my coveted PhD studentship over to my best friend and sign on for a three-year, full-time homeopathy training course.

Now, as an experienced homeopath, it is "science" that is biting me on the bottom. I know homeopathy works, not only because I've seen it with my own eyes countless times, but because scientific research confirms it. And yet I keep reading reports in the media saying that homeopathy doesn't work and that this scientific evidence doesn't exist.

The facts, it seems, are being ignored. By the end of 2009, 142 randomised control trials (the gold standard in medical research) comparing homeopathy with placebo or conventional treatment had been published in peer-reviewed journals – 74 were able to draw firm conclusions: 63 were positive for homeopathy and 11 were negative. Five major systematic reviews have also been carried out to analyse the balance of evidence from RCTs of homeopathy – four were positive (Kleijnen, J, et al; Linde, K, et al; Linde, K, et al; Cucherat, M, et al) and one was negative (Shang, A et al). It's usual to get mixed results when you look at a wide range of research results on one subject, and if these results were from trials measuring the efficacy of "normal" conventional drugs, ratios of 63:11 and 4:1 in favour of a treatment working would be considered pretty persuasive.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/15/homeopathy-works-scientific-evidence