The American Medical Association (AMA) was once the arch foe of homeopathy and for a number of years, contributed to its decline in the U.S. Now the AMA offers doctors continuing Medical Education credits when they take courses in homeopathy. The Australian Medical Association has yet to come out of the dark. Their website still states: “Evidence is clear that homeopathy is not an effective treatment.” No doubt that attitude was reinforced by the NHMRC study on homeopathy, that used fraudulent methods to malign homeopathy. A few years ago, a deputy chairman of the British Medical Association declared that “Homeopathy is witchcraft.” He was inadvertently affirming the mystery of homeopathy. Let’s take it as a compliment. His views were certainly influenced by the UK Science and Technology Committee study in which no evidence for homeopathy was considered.
In Spain, where homeopathy is quite popular, the medical establishment has begun a deranged attack on homeopathy, purging homeopathy courses from medical universities. This in spite of the fact that fifteen million Spaniards use homeopathy regularly, and most are “very satisfied” with the results.
Attacks on homeopathy by medical societies have been going on for nearly 200 years. The homeopathy community has pushed back in numerous ways. When homeopathy was assailed by the American Medical Association in 1903, homeopaths in Colorado responded with this gentle resolution:
The Colorado Homoeopaths’ Resolution
Reported in the Homoeopathic Recorder – Vol 18 – 1903
The Colorado homoeopaths, at their recent meeting in Denver, adopted the following resolutions:
“Whereas, The American Medical Association has recommended the admission of the homoeopathists to membership in all allopathic medical societies throughout the United States on condition that said homoeopathists shall first agree to drop the name Homoeopathy from any public or private use in their business and
professional capacities; and,
“Whereas, We believe that our allopathic brethren are much more ignorant of Homoeopathy than we are of Allopathy; and,
“ Whereas, We believe that a knowledge of the truths of Homoeopathy would be of the very greatest benefit to the allopathic school and the patrons thereof; and,
“Whereas, We desire, in the spirit of true fraternity, to reciprocate the courtesy which has been extended to us; now, therefore, be it
“Resolved, That the Colorado Homoeopathic Society, in convention assembled on this, the 17th day of September, 1903, hereby extends a cordial invitation to all allopathic physicians in good standing to become members of this society, on condition that they shall agree to investigate the laws of Homoeopathy and to give it a fair and impartial test in the practice.”
EDITORIAL -Countering Ignorance with Humor in 1903 – –– Alan V. Schmukler
–– Feedback from December 2018 – Hpathy.com
HOMEOPATH IN THE HOT-SEAT
–– An Interview with Jan Scholten – Part III (video and transcript) – David Nortman ND
FEATURED
– Online Homeopathy Course by George Vithoulkas
– Lectures on Organon of Medicine VOL 2 by Dr. Bhatia – AVAILABLE NOW!
ARTICLES :
––Homoeopathic Management of Pneumonia – Dr. M Vamsi Krishna Reddy, Dr. B Manasa, Dr. Navin Pawaskar
–– Homeopathy & Spagyrics – Dr. Serguei Krissiouk
–- How Some of the Old Masters Converted to Homeopathy – Katja Schütt
–– Why I became a Homeopath – Dr. Richard Moskowitz
––Cancer Is Not a Disease in Itselfbut the Outcome of Internal Disturbance -D r. Suhail Shiekh
––Senega Viewed Through Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook (Using P&W Synopsis Software) -Vera Resnick
–Homeopathy for Melasma, Chloasma – Dr. Manish Bhatia
–– Tidbits – Elaine Lewis
–– Tips & Secrets – Dr. Sneha Thakkar
CLINICAL CASES
–– Role of Anti-Miasmatic or Intercurrent Remedy in Dengue Shock Syndrome – Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Dr. Parizad Damania, Dr. Komal Gupta
–– Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura -Dr. Vitan Gosain
––Irregular Menses -Excessive Bleeding -Testudo hermanniCase -Vatsala Sperling
–– Malignant Jaundice in a boy of 10 – Dr. Azizur Rahman
–– Abdominal Pain in a Boy of 13 – Dr. Hetal Vasa
––Hydrocele in a Young Child – Dr. Beena Desai
––Psoriasis in a Man of 44 –Dr. Nishtha Bhatt
–– Brothers on CEASE Treatment and Genetic Exams – Maria Helena Rossi
–– Acute Hemorrhoids in a Man of 25 – Dr. Vineet Shukla
BOOK REVIEWS
Free as a Bird by Marcus Kuntosch MD is reviewed by Vatsala Sperling.
VETERINARY
–– Ask the Holistic Vet – January 2019 – Dr. Deva Khalsa
PLAY CROSSWORDS!
–– Crossword January 2019 – Alan V. Schmukler
CARTOONS
Are they Lying?–-Alan V. Schmukler
SOLVE THE CASE QUIZ
–– Head Injury – Elaine Lewis, Shana Lewis
–– Revisiting: What Remedy Is Bart Simpson – Elaine Lewis, Shana Lewis
RESEARCH
–– Causticum: A New Approach to an Old Truth – Karl-Heinz Jansen & Dr. Dirk Thomas Quak
––AGROHOMEOPATHY
–– The Plant Doctor – January 2019 – RadkoTichavsky
“His views were certainly influenced by the UK Science and Technology Committee study in which no evidence for homeopathy was considered, and not a single practicing homeopath testified.”
Peter Fisher gave oral evidence: was he not a practising homeopath?
They also took oral evidence from:
Mr Robert Wilson, Chairman, British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers (BAHM)
Dr Robert Mathie, Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association
The following also provided written evidence:
Dr Clare Relton
Dr Hugh J Nielsen
Dr Jean Munro
Dr Peter Fisher
Dr Peter Julu
Dr Sara Eames
Professor George Lewith
Professor Harold Walach
and the following organisations:
Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH)
British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers (BAHM)
British Homeopathic Association
European Central Council of Homeopaths
European Committee for Homeopathic Medicine in Europe
Homeopathy Research Institute
Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century (H:MC21)
Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis (LMHI)
Northern Ireland Association of Homeopaths
Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health
Society of Homeopaths
Around 50% of submissions were from homeopaths or organisations representing or supporting homeopaths.
Apparently they were all disregarded.
Do you now accept that your statement was wrong? Will you correct it?
But all those submissions and oral sessions were published and considered by the committee. On what evidence do you say they were all disregarded.
No acknowledgement or change then?
Yes, it turns out that Wilson, Fisher and Mathie did give oral testimony ( my mistake). However many more anti-homeopathy witnesses were permitted to testify. One MP (Ian Stewart MP) dissented from the report because he was concerned by the “balance of witnesses.”
The UK Science and Technology Committee was comprised of a farmer, a professor of chemistry, an analytical chemist, a chemical plant operator, an IT expert, an immunologist, and 2 people with connections to a the anti – homeopathy group Sense About Science.
“The “Evidence Check” was signed off by just three of the 15 members of the original committee, never discussed or endorsed by the whole UK Parliament, and had its recommendations ignored by the UK Department of Health.” Of the three votes, two members did not attend any of the investigational meetings.
While Dr Peter Fisher and Dr Robert Mathie gave pro-homeopathy oral testimony, numerous anti-homeopathy individuals were permitted to testimony. No systematic scientific method was applied, it was not carried out by expert academics in the field and the choice of evidence included showed a disturbing bias – both in terms of written submissions and the choice of witnesses permitted to give oral evidence.
“One MP (Ian Stewart MP) dissented from the report because he was concerned by the “balance of witnesses.””
Pity Stewart didn’t bother to have that particular concern of his officially recorded in the formal minutes of the Committee.
But do you know why Nadine Dorries MP, a known supporter of homeopathy and a member of the Select Committee while it was considering homeopathy, never bothered to turn up for any of the meetings and didn’t bother to vote on it? She may have been able to help this ‘imbalance’.
Dear Geo,
I see your urgent call for change as an indisputable judgment in favor of homeopathy. Nonetheless, it takes time and, above all, respect in communication to clarify an issue. I can assure you, that Alan, for sure is more than willing to do justice to homeopathy with all its advantages.
(And may be the timeline of the relevant evidence of your given homeopaths and the statement of the Committee Alan refers to, is what clarifies the point?)
Thanks and best regards,
Katja
Sorry? What “indisputable judgment in favor of homeopathy”? And what “timeline of tghe relevant evidence”?
However, I sincerely hope Alan is concerned with accuracy and I look forward to the correction and clarification.
Geo, if what you say is true, that Peter Fisher, et al did testify before the UK Science and Technology Committee, and the editorial says that no homeopath testified, then we do have to make that correction. I would ask Alan to simply delete that statement–that no homeopath testified–after first double-checking his sources, of course.
Well, Fisher is listed in the report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf at page 51 (p55 of the pdf)) as having given evidence and he can be seen sitting in front of the committee at the evidence sessions on 25 November 2009 at 10:32 answering questions on homeopathy: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/7374b758-5e81-430e-8f7b-13d43ec13b9a?in=10:32:56
… so it does seem incontrovertible that Fisher did indeed give evidence to the committee. I assume it’s also incontrovertible that Fisher was a homeopath so I look forward to the article being corrected.
Since it’s not my article, I can’t correct it; but I take your point.
I watched the video you posted. Fisher and the other supporter of homeopathy on the panel kept citing clinical trials of homeopathic remedies showing that homeopathy got results beyond placebo, and the other two panel members kept saying there were no trials and therefore no evidence! They were like broken records, repeating this mantra, “no trials, no evidence”, closing their ears to the discussion. And I see they had no patients on the panel, implying that their opinion would have been worthless. And there was the implied assumption that homeopathy only “works” because of the placebo effect, a “fact” which is so obvious to them, that no proof of this assertion need be offered. I see Professor Ernst was on that panel. He’s a professional hit-man for orthodox medicine, he’s against all of alternative medicine, meaning all natural treatments. He kept saying “placebo effect,, no trials, no evidence…” over and over again, like a broken record, even as the other 2 panelists kept mentioning trials and trial results; it didn’t even register with him, he didn’t hear, didn’t acknowledge. The committee members kept asking, “Should we authorize money for placebo?” They weren’t hearing either. And I don’t know how half of the panel was allowed to be anti-homeopathy when the purpose of the discussion was to interiew homeopaths regarding the efficacy of their profession. There was only one homeopath on that panel–Peter Fisher. The other one made a point of saying, “I’m not a homeopath,” and of course the other two were adversaries, reinforcing the views of the committee. So it was basically Peter Fisher against a roomful of mostly antagonistic interrogators asking unenlightened, predictable questions. So, Geo, yes, you proved your point that Dr. Fisher did testify before the UK Science and Technology Committee, but your video also, unfortunately, showed how dismissive and biased that committee was.
“He’s a professional hit-man for orthodox medicine”
That’s an interesting accusation against Prof Ernst. Care to explain what you mean by that?
Actually Geo, the only thing that needs explaining is why you are making comments on this website, which is dedicated to teaching homeopathy. You’re here on false pretenses. You’re what we call a troll, and we don’t permit that.
Wow. This is an article about homeopathy. I spotted an error you had made and provided you with the evidence that showed you were wrong and invited you to correct it.
Do you have a problem doing that?
Thank you Elaine for the that excellent description of the testimony, I also watched it at the time it occurred and saw the same imbalance against homeopathy. Although Wilson, Fisher and Mathie did give oral testimony ( my mistake), so many more anti-homeopathy witnesses were permitted to testify that one MP (Ian Stewart) dissented from the report because he was concerned by the “balance of witnesses.”
The UK Science and Technology Committee was comprised of a farmer, a professor of chemistry, an analytical chemist, a chemical plant operator, an IT expert, an immunologist, and 2 people with connections to a the anti – homeopathy group Sense About Science.
“The “Evidence Check” was signed off by just three of the 15 members of the original committee, never discussed or endorsed by the whole UK Parliament, and had its recommendations ignored by the UK Department of Health.” Of the three votes, two members did not attend any of the investigational meetings.
Alan, it’s quite apparent that Geo is a troll, as the only thing he noticed about my long post was that I called out Professor Ernst as an attack dog for Big Pharma, which to me means that Geo is one too! Your average person doesn’t even know who Professor Ernst is, never mind CARE that he’s being characterized in the “proper” way. So, bye-bye Geo, go attack the herbalists now.
Well, Elaine, can you or can you not provide evidence for the nasty things you said about the professor – whether you believe he is well-known or not?
Or shall we let any other readers come to their own conclusions about your accusations?
Geo, don’t you understand? You stepped in it! All you cared about, the only thing, was my characterization of Professor Edzard Ernst, a man who never saw a mode of natural healing he didn’t hate! He’s made bashing natural medicine his life’s work! What is the alternative, Geo, what you call “scientific medicine”? It kills over 100,000 people a year in the United States and sends over 2,000,000 to the hospital! It’s anything but scientific. They get to do a drug trial over and over again until it finally comes out “right”, then they publish THAT one and throw all the failures away! And guess who pays for the drug trials? The manufacturers, the people who are going to profit from the sales. This is called “conflict of interest”. Hardly scientific. What a shame Professor Ernst doesn’t feel compelled to warn the public about that.
Well, you’re the one who first mentioned Prof Ernst, not me! And you did it by making an accusation – can you or can you not provide the evidence you based your accusation on?
What is your obsession with this man? He’s all you talk about! You don’t address any of the other issues at hand–just HIM! What is he, your cult leader? Evidence. Everyone involved in natural medicine knows who Edzard Ernst is, he’s on a rampage against all natural medicine advocates. An excerpt from an article on Ernst states:
“Professor Edzard Ernst, a retired German physician and academic, has recently become a prominent advocate of plans that could potentially outlaw the entire profession of naturopathic doctors in Germany. Promoting the nonsensical idea that naturopathic medicine somehow poses a risk to public health, Ernst attacks its practitioners as supposedly having been educated in ‘nonsense’.” [click below to read more]
https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/2017/11/professor-edzard-ernst-a-career-built-on-discrediting-natural-health-science/
Again, you’re the one who first mentioned him and accused him of something – it’s clearly not me who’s obsessed with him!
Remember this? Your statement?
“‘He’s a professional hit-man for orthodox medicine’
That’s an interesting accusation against Prof Ernst. Care to explain what you mean by that?”
In my last post, I explained by offering you a quote from an article on Edzard Ernst. If working to end the entire field of natural medicine in Germany doesn’t qualify you as a “hit-man for orthodox medicine”, I don’t know what does. Any more questions or are you done now?
You offered opinion, rhetoric, innuendo and fallacies galore but not evidence. Your claim was that he was a “professional hit-man for orthodox medicine”. Professional implies, does it not, a financial transaction. Where’s your evidence? Taylor certainly doesn’t provide it.
I think you’re the one doing the trolling here!
Geo, let’s return to my actual wording. Here is the original quote you objected to and demanded proof for: “Alan, it’s quite apparent that Geo is a troll, as the only thing he noticed about my long post was that I called out Professor Ernst as an attack dog for Big Pharma…” So, Geo, the actual phrase was “attack dog”. Ernst devotes his time to attacking all forms of natural medicine. That’s why he was there on that panel. I think dedicating your life to making sure that no one finds out about safe, non-toxic therapies, forcing people to avail themselves only of one kind of medicine that is associated with great risks, is a bizarre pursuit, to say the least. UNLESS, he’s getting paid to do it! THEN it all makes sense! And by the way, why shouldn’t he be getting paid? Big Pharma is paying everybody else! Click here to see: https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/
Nobody, neither Edzard Ernst nor anybody else will ever manage to end the entire field of natural medicine in Germany.
That’s sorted out, then.
You can’t say Edzard Ernst isn’t trying, though.
Trolls like Geo should be banned from this site. He is not adding to the discussion at all. Clearly, he has no understanding of natural treatments. He seems to think man-made chemicals and surgery are a good thing, even though taking prescription drugs AS PRESCRIBED is the fourth leading cause of death in the US. (And look at all those people who believed their allopathic doctors who prescribed Oxycontin for them!) Homeopathy is the most wonderful medicine I’ve found in 20 years of searching. There’s no way I’d ever go back to taking pharmaceuticals when homeopathy has cured my heart palpitations, high blood pressure, (Thank you, Elaine!), one family member’s depression, another’s acne, and the list goes on an on. Some day, Geo the Troll is going to need help and he’s going to get himself some man-made chemicals and/or surgery that may temporarily remove his symptoms but won’t cure him. He’ll simply be turned into a lifelong “customer,” of the AMA and Big Pharma, dependent upon their man-made chemicals and surgery, for life. In the meantime, this site should be only for people who are smart enough to add something of value to our discussions.
Thank you Linda. Actually, in truth, we don’t allow trolls here. Geo got lucky. We allowed him to have his say and, as I noted, all he seemed to care about was a man named Edzard Ernst.