The truth about homeopathy and influenza has been clouded by oppositional medicine, but nevetheless, those of us who know better have a responsibility to our fellow man to speak truth to power, and now, thanks to the Internet and the science of homeopathy, the suffering of 1918 need not ever be repeated again.
The unfortunate part of this is that those who would profit off the suffering of others with inferior means want to rope in the "authorities." The World Health Organization , which is either quite well aware of the facts, or ought to be, facts that anyone can verify for themselves on the Internet, are misinforming the public in an effort that may lead to dissuading a large portion of the general population from taking precautions that could easily prevent death.
The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report states:
The WHO has warned that people with conditions such as HIV, tuberculosis and malaria should not rely on homeopathic treatments, the BBC reports. The agency was responding to a June letter (full text available here), in which researchers from the Voice of Young Science Network (VYS) called on the agency "to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating TB, infant diarrhoea, influenza, malaria and HIV." The group, which is part of the Sense About Science organization that advocates for "evidence-based" care, has conveyed the WHO's views in a letter to health ministers, according to the BBC (8/20)." [14]
Read the Kaiser report again, carefully. The June VYS letter to the WHO in June, said: "We are calling on the WHO to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating TB, infant diarrhoea, influenza, malaria and HIV."
But in the WHO proscribing of homeopathy for treatment of specific conditions, influenza is left out. I am searching for a competent voice at the WHO calling for the dismissal of homeopathy in the treatment of influenza, and I have yet to find it.
The Kaiser report says:
The WHO’s strategy is very unclear on homeopathy and that is shocking," said Daniella Muallem, a biophysicist at University College London, who signed the letter, adding, "They are supposed to be articulating evidence-based medicine, but their stance is very wishy-washy" (Rose, Times, 6/1). [14]
Perhaps the WHO appears wishy-washy because they are being bullied by the traditional opposition to homeopathy, which always ends up being guilty of the very thing they accuse homeopathy of: No evidence to back up assertions. All we see here are condemnations, more empty threats and complaints, but no confronting the evidence as it stands from others, and certainly none of their own.
The Kaiser reports says:
In an open letter to the WHO highlighting homeopathy projects in Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Ghana and Botswana that offer treatments for HIV, malaria, diarrhea or the flu, the researchers wrote, ‘Those of us working with the most rural and impoverished people of the world already struggle to deliver the medical help that is needed. When homeopathy stands in place of effective treatment, lives are lost. (Mail & Guardian, 6/1).[14]
Quite on the contrary, the UK's Faculty of Homeopathy claims that there is evidence homeopathy helps with the flu. Massive evidence I might add. Here for example, is just one piece. This is a study that the "researchers" are so studiously avoiding when they say there is "no evidence." It is an abstract of an in vitro, i.e. "in the glass" a test tube, biochemical study by Glatthaar-Saalmuller on the effects of a homeopathic flu remedy branded Grippe Heel on the influenza A virus, among others:
Gripp-Heel is a homeopathic preparation frequently used in the treatment of respiratory viral infections such as various types of influenza and the common cold. Gripp-Heel demonstrated dose-dependent in vitro activity (significant reductions of infectivity by 20% to 40%) against Human herpesvirus 1, Human adenovirus C serotype 5, Influenza A virus, Human respiratory syncytial virus, Human parainfluenza virus 3, Human rhinovirus B serotype 14, and Human coxsackievirus serotype A9. The mechanisms of this antiviral activity are still unclear, but type I interferon induction might be a possible explanation. [15]
The Glatthaar-Saalmuller study is available for anyone’s perusal through the footnoted link where it can be found in PUBMED, the U.S. government’s online database for medical articles. [16]
The opponents of homeopathy will say that the Glatthaar-Saalmuller study is the only one. But note that this is after saying that there was no objective evidence. Now they must attack the validity of this one study, attack the credentials and motivations of the sole researcher. They will try to isolate and humiliate the author and say that he or she is simply in the employ of the manufacturer of that particular remedy. Without having read or defining their standards. they will try to quickly dismiss Glatthaar-Saalmuller by saying that the study was badly done, sloppy work, of poor methodological quality, it wasn’t replicated or blinded, there were no controls, the work was not peer reviewed. They will imply that Glatthaar-Saalmuller is incompetent and dishonest and how dare he challenge theirplacebo hypothesis: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and Glatthaar-Saalmuller is not it.
But wait! If we click on Glatthaar-Saalmuller at the PUBMED prompt, we come up with four more published studies by that same author, three of which are also in vitro tests of homeopathy and one more that is a test of a plant extract in the treatment of influenza: Glatthaar-Saalmüller B, Sacher F, Esperester A. Antiviral activity of an extract derived from roots of Eleutherococcus senticosus. Antiviral Res. 2001 Jun;50(3):223-8. Labor Dr. Glatthaar, Virologische Testsysteme, Gewebekulturen, Immundiagnostik, Biotechnologie Zentrum Tübingen/Reutlingen, Reutlingen, Germany.
Seems as if the man has a real interest in the treatment of influenza, not only with homeopathy but with phyto extracts as well, and he has some friends who share his interests.
And there is yet another thing that the homeopathy haters have left out of this very important discussion. And it is important, it’s very important, it’s critical: human lives are at stake. Right? And so we’re all presumably trying to be extremely careful in what we say, what we claim, what we write. Am I not correct? Of course I am. We are all presumably seeking the truth here.
Here is what should be raising the hair on the back of the necks of those who say that there is no objective evidence for homeopathy:
Glatthaar-Saalmuller is not the only in vitro researcher of homeopathic medicine.
In 2007 six German researchers at the Charite University Medical Center’s Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics in Berlin conducted a comprehensive review of the literature for the purpose of analyzing all of the known in vitro evidence for homeopathy.
Now make a note of this. This is the Witt review: "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies- A systematic review of the literature." [17] The Witt review is a milestone in homeoapthic research because what little evidence there was for homeopathy was scattered. That is to say, you rarely find it all in one place, especially in vitro trials of it, which are the most objective evidence for the action of homeopathic medicine. There hasn't been a lot of interest in it, mosttly importantly lacking in the practitioners of it, perhaps because it challenges some of the theory for it. Homeopathy is an anthropocentric doctrine, shrouded in mystery as to its mechanism, and the doctrine has adapted to it, and even wears its idiosyncrasy like a badge and has learned to shrug off the accusations and ridicule. Homeoapthic doctors know what they've got, and as elusive and unpredictable as the results may be, they've seen it work, and so the important part of this gets buried: You can’t say the effects of what you see in a test tube are the effects of a placebo, and the placebo charge is what is most often leveled at homeopathy. And you will find in this argumkent, that the opponents traverse roundly in their arguments until that point is forgotten to which they return, pathologically, tothe original argument, that the effects then must be placebo.. They will leave one point to take up another. They will attack it on every possible angle, until you finally realize, the objections to homeopathy are pathological.
Every outspoken opponent of homeopathy is an atheist!
I have made this point repeatedly about the opponents of homeopathy, and as strange as it may seem, I have found it to be surprisingly and consistently true, that the objections to homeopathy are mired in atheism. I write of this perjoratively, because I have come to the conclusion that by secular accounts alone atheism has proven to be a dangerous self destructive state of mind. According psychiatric studies, atheists have the highest rtate of suicide, and this holds true for national rates in countries that have high rates of atheism, highest in industrialized countries.
This is an im[portant part of this investigation, because it reveals how to meet objections, and conisdering the death toll, what it has been, what it cfan be and how it can be avoided by suing homeoapthy, it is important to know the opposition and what drives it, because it must be defeated.
To be fair, I am sure that there could very well be that the factors involved here that are merely coincidental, but as a professional investigator I learned never to dismiss a coincidence as irrelevant, and there are other features that the opponents of atheism share with the opponents of homeopathy, most notably that they have a hard time referencing their allegations and externally validating their claims, and that is a major weakness that must be noted and exploited. We must point out to the opponents of homeopathy who they are and whaqt they lack, most notably what they deamnd of us. In reality, they are the ones acting merely on theory, their theory being that effects of the high dilutes that consitute homeopathic derive from the imagination, that homeopathy is the sytematic use of placebo.
So the point of the argument is to point out to them that the action of homeopathic remedies can be seen on plants, and that if they doubt this then they should put it to the test themselves, either with seeds or yeast. Seeds can be tested in clear plastic cups, covered with cottons soaked in water, treated with Staphysagria, Arsenicum or some other remedy, and the coleoptiles, the srouts, measured against controls.
The yeast method makes use of bottles filled with sugar and yeast in water with balloons stretched over the nmouth of the bottle to measure gas output, the water treated with a remedy. I used Staphysagria, but I imagine that many other remedies can produce interesting results.
But the atheist homeoapthy hater won't try it because he is afraid he'll prove himself wrong. They claim to be scientists, but they are not. They are only armchair judges. They have a hard time getting their hands dirty. They demand evidence in the belief that it can't be produced, so when it is produced, they dismiss it.
They tend to be cryptic.They usually won't identify themselves if they don't have to,so they need to be called out.
This is a potentially nasty business. Jacques Benveniste was crucified over it, and the subtext of every successful study of high dilutes suggests a similar reaction. Igt sundertandable that homeopaths are more interested in human sujects to try their remedies on, but we have to remain objective. In vitro prov ing should be a requirement for licensing. In other words, if you can't prove it in vitro, you can't practice it on human subjects. This ouwld make every homeopath a prover of homeopathic medicine.
It’s a common notion among many people in the corporate driven media, run by big pharma accounts, that Jacques Benveniste has been the only one who ever did an in vitro test of homeopathy, and that he was thoroughly discredited for the basophil degranulation test. But that’s not true.
In the Witt review each study was evaluated on a cumulative score of one to 10 using a systemized scoring. A system called the Score for Assessment of Physical Experiments on Homeopathy
The Witt study found 67 in vitro experiments reported on in 75 publications.
One third of them were replications.
What they found was that three out of four studies found objective evidence for homeopathy
Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect, and 2/3 of the 18 scored 6 points or more and controlled contamination.
Nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive.
The critics now must fall back into the next argument. They now have to say that the results are unstable, weak and inhomogenous. But the first assetion, that homeopathy is a placebo, has been discredited by numerous in vitro trials, some which scored well above what the reviewers would consider to be high standards. The Belon trial, for instance, scored a perfect 10, the highest possible on the SAPEH scale
The most popular replication was the basophil degranulation test, the same test for which Benveniste has falsely been credited with having "discovered" and subsequently falsely "discredited" as well after James Randi, a professional magician and sleight of hand artist who professedly had a million dollar stake in the outcome, was allowed in Benveniste’s laboratory and secretely handled the key to the double blind. [18, 19, 20, 21] The irony was that the basophil degranulation test had already been replicated, more than any other in vitro test for homeopathy!
Now, this is amazing because of the discrepancy between what the media and most professionals think of homeopathy, that there are no objective tests for homeopathic remedies. Its as if that factoid has been beat into our heads, that there is no objective evidence for homeopathy.
If you type in the search term "homeopathy" it returns over 3900 articles that reference homeopathy, many like the one above.
Perhaps the "researchers," who are so fond of "the evidence", whatever they think that should be, would be so kind to state their double blind, random controlled trials that support their wild claimz that "lives are lost" when homeopathy prempts their expensive, dangerous and ineffective treaments. Perhaps they could state for us volume and page their published findings that contradict the successful mass usage of homeopathy in the treatment of pandemic disease.
So now who’s putting lives at risk?
Paula Ross, the chief executive of the Society of Homeopaths, says of the WHO and VYS slam: "This is just another poorly wrapped attempt to discredit homeopathy by Sense About Science. The irony is that in their efforts to promote evidence in medicine, they have failed to do their own homework."
Yes! Exactly! The VYS, with its "sense about science" shell is a health menace, and its membership should be required to turn in their licenses to practice and not get them back until they have successfully completed a course of instruction in homeopathy, real medicine. Have them learn some facts. Study the history, conduct a proving, do a biological experiment and a physical study of high dilutes, maybe even get laughed at a bit and told their methodology was lousy by armchair scientists after they get positive results.
They might actually end up helping somebody.
Dr Sara Eames, president of the faculty, said people should not be deprived of effective conventional medicines for serious disease.
But she added: "Millions die each year as those affected have no access to these drugs.
"It therefore seems reasonable to consider what beneficial role homeopathy could play. What is needed is further research and investment into homeopathy." [22.]
There is no doubt the evidence, born out in history and scientific trial, will show to any objective investigator that exactly the opposite is true of what the VYS is claiming . Humanity has to stop listening to the Voice of Young Science, and listen to the voice of older science instead. We have a simple preventative and a simple remedy for anyone who gets the swine flu. The ultimate danger here is relying on a contaminated needle stick from an ignoramus wanting to get paid to play God. In its August 17th issue The Times of India reports:
"The British Government has written to senior neurologists to warn them that the new swine flu vaccine may trigger a deadly brain disorder called Guillain-Barre syndrome.
Medical experts have been asked to look out for cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome which can paralyse its victims, once the national vaccination programme begins.
In its letter, the Health Protection Agency refers to the use of a swine flu vaccine in the US in 1976, when 25 people died from the syndrome, while just one died from flu.
Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested, and its effects, especially on children, are unknown. " [14.]
It certainly is interesting that this information hasn’t appeared in the Western press, but rather in the country that has the highest use of homeopathy in the world.
Homeopathy, according to WHO’s own assessment, is the second most widely used form of medicine in the world today, second only to Chinese medicine .[23] It is the largest form of medicine today in India, where crowds are mobbing pharmacies for homeopathic remedies.
"And, in a frenzy state, people have started buying Influenzinum homeopathic medicine from homeopathic shops and pharmacies. One can see crowd of people buying influenzinum in front of homeopathic shops in Pune and Mumbai." [24]
This is because it works. [25] Despite the perpetual attacks on it, homeopathy has a history of increasing use. Homeopathic remedies are not placebos. They are real medicines. The proof of it is that their action can be seen on plants, animals, children, in double blind trials and in biochemical tests, all subjects that are free from the placebo effect.
"The virus does not become resistant to homeopathy because we don't treat the virus," Mirman said. "We treat the vital force, the immune system, so then it takes care of the virus, whatever it is." [24]
The attack on homeopathy by the VYS is nothing new. Over a hundred years ago, on Jan 9th, 1890, the Homeopathic Society of New York met to discuss how to deal with its two greatest challenges: Cures for attacks on homeopaths by the oppositional medical practitioners of the old school, and influenza.
After discussing homeopathy and the struggles it had met since Hahnemann promulgated it 80 years past from that time, Dr. George S. Norton had the following to say:
"Since all other means have failed to destroy homeopathy, its opponents have raised the cry that it is sectarian, as if that were a disgrace.
"But this, like all past attempts to injure the school, is doomed to the same inevitable failure, and will prove in the end to be a title of honor and not of shame. For sectarianism was in the beginning forced upon homeopathy.
"If, when the law of similia was first promulgated by Hahnemann, it had been accepted by the profession as one law of cure, even of little importance, it would not have advanced the therapeutics of the old school many years, but would have prevented the formation of a sectarian school.
"But such was not the case. It was met by the bigotry of the medical profession, who, without investigation, held the law and its followers up to ridicule, derision, and oppression.
"Shall we then, at the dictum of the old school and the few discontents in our own ranks, tear down the bridge which has carried us in safety over? Shall we renounce those principles which have been our guide in the past or endeavor to merge them into the broad field of medical empiricism? No; most emphatically no!
"The time has not yet come for this to be done. When the dominant school of medicine accepts the law of similia as one of the laws of cure; when the principles of homeopathy are taught with others in their colleges; when homeopathic physicians and surgeons are admitted upon an equal footing in their societies and given the same recognition in their hospitals and public institutions; when the ban which has been laid upon all followers of Hahnemann has been removed, then, and not until then, can we afford to give up our distinctive title. They who first forced us into sectarianism must give us a more cordial invitation to return to the fold before we can with honor accept."
The participants then put the quarrel aside and went on to discuss treatments for influenza, noting that there had been 80 or more epidemics had appeared in different portions of the globe since the 16th century. It was recorded that in the treament of influenza, gelsemium and phos were used with good results, and that as many as 99 out of 100 of the numerous death were the result of non-homeopathic treatment. [26]
Modern proof will be found in the sub continent. Watch India. They have the highest use of homeopathy in the world and the government has een funding research for its use. With so many people using it, if it is ineffective, then India will tell the story.
Be safe, be well.[27] Inform others to try homeoapthy. [28] If they have there doubts, send them to http://scienceofhomeopathy.com. It works.
