Imagine an organization presenting what looks like a scientific study, except that the study was totally contrived to reach a manipulated conclusion. There you have the expensive propaganda piece from Australia’s medical/pharmaceutical lobby, the NHMRC. It’s titled: Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health. Predictably, the “study” concluded that homeopathy was not useful for any of the conditions tested. The major news organizations were quick to follow up with headlines declaring homeopathy nothing but placebo. What the public was not told, however, was that the first company the NHMRC hired to do the study, found positive results for homeopathy. The NHMRC then fired them and hired another company. From there, the NHMRC dove deeper into deception. They had to work very hard to create such a flagrant lie about homeopathy. Here are some of their contrivances:
They arranged for their “study” to ignore any positive research, including the Swiss government’s five-year study that found homeopathy effective, safe and economical. The NHMRC permitted no homeopaths or experts on homeopathy on the research committee. They deliberately excluded any of the massive evidence on the use of homeopathy to prevent disease, such as large scale trials in Cuba, India, Argentina and Brazil involving a total of 2.5 million people.
The NHMRC created a definition of “unreliable studies” that included good quality studies repeated multiple times by a single research team. They set up the “study” so that if a single remedy didn’t work for an ailment, they could conclude that homeopathy didn’t work for that ailment. That’s like saying, “penicillin didn’t work for heart attack, so conventional medicine is not effective in heart attack. The Homeopathy Research Institute, commenting on this stated: “This is a bizarre and unprecedented way of assessing the effectiveness of interventions.”
Why would the NHMRC go to such lengths to discredit homeopathy with a twisted study? Clearly, they had an agenda that served a master other than the truth or the public good. Perhaps they answered to the one industry that stands to lose from homeopathy. It’s the same industry that sponsors research to “prove” that vitamins and herbs are bad for you, and drugs are good. If you can swallow that, you can swallow this “study”.
In this issue:
Interview: This month we chat with homeopath, activist, songwriter and singer Rix Pyke. She shares her views of the mental health system and much more.
The Centre for Homeopathic Education (CHE), the largest homeopathy school in the UK talks about their programs and teaching philosophy and discusses CHE Budapest, founded in 2012. They also share three interesting cases with us.
Articles: In a beautiful essay, Dr. William Henry Holcombe tells how he became a homeopath. Veterinary homeopath David Chapman talks about his dedicated work at the Llama Sanctuary in B.C. David Little discusses Constitution and Terrain, excerpted from his six volume Homoeopathic Compendium. Ashok RajGuru gives a lesson in pathogenesis and pathophysiology and also shares his views on the NHMRC. See Elaine Lewis newest “Tidbits” and Alan Schmukler’s Tip & Secrets. With tongue in cheek, Alan Schmukler gives parents eight reasons to vaccinate their children, and also shares Pharma’s strategy in “Pharma Memo”.
Research: Robert Medhurst presents Part 29 in his continuing series on research in homeopathy.
Cases: This month we have excellent cases from Dr. Tilottama B. Galande (miscarriages), Tricia Feijo (epilepsy), Beth Knudtsen (vertigo), Dr. Jean-Claude Leeuwerck (depression), Queenita Fernandes (psoriasis), Dr. Rahi Nagda (alopecia), Susan Hooper (Spongiotic Dermatitis) Dr. Samrat N. Tote (rhinitis).
Ask the Holistic Vet: Dr. Deva Khalsa answers readers’ veterinary questions. Send your questions!
Ask the Plant Doctors: Radko Tichavsky, Mark Moodie and Pawan Singhania answer reader’s questions about crops and houseplants.
There’s more! Remember to see the new Cartoon and Crossword puzzle, Elaine Lewis’s Quiz and answers from last month. Get Involved! Send your questions and comments, cases, articles, book reviews and interviews to: [email protected]
As homeopaths we are quick to pick up on this sort of contemptible report which brings science into disrepute, but I wonder if the rebuttal of the so-called findings gets as much publicity as the original mud-slinging?
The rebuttals only get traction when people who value homeopathy post that information on forums and in online media outlets. Every attack on homeopathy must be met as soon as possible with a rebuttal.
Respected Sir, Thanks for the truth and strange. It is also strange for the science.