| · Asthma
· Medicine
· Community pharmacy
· Homoeopathy (3)
· Birdsgrove House
· Retention fees (2)
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Homoeopathy
Unconvinced, but with an open mind
From Mr J. R. Ahmed, MRPharmS
With regard to the recent letters regarding homoeopathy, let me say
that I am unconvinced by the claims of homoeopathic practitioners. However,
I do have an open mind, so any benefits over placebo exhibited by homoeopathic
remedies should be looked at closely and not dismissed out of hand.
I am reminded of the claims of faith healers in the Indian subcontinent
who pray over victims of snake bites in order to “cure” them
of the poison. The fact that most snake bites are not lethal adds to
the power of these charlatans and any deaths are always blamed on the
poor individuals or their families.
Individuals who were protected against cholera when they worked in copper
mines only proved that a certain therapeutic dose of a substance is required
for immunity, and not diluted water. Belladonna at therapeutic doses
again shows that herbal remedies are effective and not homoeopathic products.
Individuals with infectious diseases have a remarkable ability to become “cured” without
any outside help; it is called the immune system. Deaths caused by malaria
are more likely when malnutrition is also present, and the disease is
cyclical. Individuals can have malaria for many years and have attacks
with relatively no problems between bouts. If a homoeopathic remedy is
administered and the person becomes well then this proves nothing.
I challenge any homoeopath to prove beyond doubt that this type of remedy
works, bearing in mind that the first rule of medicine is to do no harm:
would someone consume a lethal dose of arsenic and then administer the
homoeopathic remedy in order to test the effectiveness of the “cure”?
Jawaid Ahmed
Birmingham
Showing homoeopaths the way forward
From Dr R. J. Schmidt, MRPharmS
Lee Kayne (PJ, 26 August, p246) believes that I am, once again, denigrating
homoeopathy. In fact, as my recent letter states, I have no problem with
the practice of homoeopathy so long as patients benefit and so long as
the gullible and dim-witted are not being exploited or harmed (PJ, 19
August, p220).
I am a pragmatist. I am simply asking for those homoeopaths such as Kamal
Nathwani, who asserts that china officinalis preparations “are
proven to be useful in the treatment of malaria” (PJ, 26 August,
p246), to provide evidence to support this assertion. Lawrence
Collin (PJ, 2 September, p274) also implies that homoeopathy can be used successfully
for the treatment of malaria. Dr Kayne’s contra-assertion that “the
ultra-dilute dose levels involved … cannot deal with disease caused
by parasites … in the same rapid and effective manner that orthodox
medicines do” similarly troubles me. How does he know this to be
true?
Dr Kayne advises us not to believe everything we read on the internet.
I do not. Mr Nathwani advises me to read Hahnemann’s ‘Organon
of medicine’. I have read some of this because it is available
on the internet (www.homeopathy athome.com/reference/organon/ organon.html).
But why should I believe what I might read in the ‘Organon’ on
the internet any more than I should believe anything else I might read
on the internet?
If a homoeopathic remedy for malaria works in a patient, it should be
possible to demonstrate this objectively to the rest of the world. An
alternative hypothesis is that it is not the homoeopathic remedy but
the practitioner that brings about healing (PJ, 24 June, p747).
There appears to be a prima facie case for the Medical Research Council,
or the World Health Organization etc, to investigate the china officinalis
question. Malaria is the scourge of humanity. If I understand the homoeopaths
correctly, they already know what the outcome of a clinical trial will
be. I guess that the medical ethics committees, through which clinical
trial proposals will have to be passed, might first want to hear from
patients who have been successfully treated homoeopathically. And I am
sure that there will be no shortage of homoeopaths who are prepared to
be infected with malaria and entered in the trial in the sure knowledge
that a few doses of quinine sulphate 30C (or whatever) will provide a
cure. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren showed us the way with their discovery
of the role of Helicobacter pylori in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease,
by infecting themselves. I am not denigrating homoeopathy; I am showing
homoeopaths the way forward.
Richard J. Schmidt
Barnoldswick,
Lancashire
Self serve and no questions asked
From Mr J. Sharp, HonMRPharmS
If Kamal Nathwani (PJ, 26 August, p246) were to take a stroll around
a few randomly selected high street pharmacies he would see scores, if
not hundreds, of homoeopathic “remedies” for all sorts of
conditions, offered for sale on an entirely self-select, self-serve,
pay-at-the-counter, no-questions-asked and no-advice-offered basis.
How would he then reconcile these observations with his assertions that “homoeopathic
treatment is based on ‘totality of symptoms’ … taking
into consideration of all the symptoms
… mental, emotional and physical pertaining to the patient” and
that “it is an individualised or holistic way of prescribing”?
John Sharp
Woodley, Berkshire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal