Homoeo Info

The BBC's Today programme and the Daily Mail have been attacked by the Government's chief scientific adviser.
Sir David King criticised the two news outlets for their coverage of genetically-modified food and the MMR vaccine.
In one of his final public appearances before stepping down from his post, he also warned that homeopathic medicine was putting lives at risk.Speaking before the Commons Innovation, Universities and Skills Select Committee, Sir David said Britain's failure to embrace GM crops had cost the economy up to £4billion.
Singling out John Humphrys, the main presenter of Radio Four's Today for particular criticism, he described coverage of the controversial issue as "a massive shot in the foot for the UK economy".
He said there was no evidence homeopathy did any good. Rather, it is a danger to health, because patients may mistakenly believe it can cure or treat serious illness.
"There is not one jot of evidence supporting the notion that homeopathic medicines are of any assistance whatsoever," he added.
"They are a risk to the population because people may take them expecting they are dealing with a serious problem."
Sir David steps down on December 31.
Fiona MacRae/Daily Mail, UK - Dec 07, 2007

Labels: UK

Mangalore: Homeopathic conference 2007 will be organized by Fr Muller Homeopathic Medical College, Derlakatte here on Saturday December 8 and Sunday December 9.
This year the theme for the conference will be 'Research in Homeopathy'
The conference is exclusively meant for deliberations on the issue of research in Homeopathy. Research already done and that which is being carried out by Homeopathic scientists and others will be presented to the audience.
Dr Chaturbhuj Nayak, director, CCRH, Prof Jindal of Bhaba Atomic Research Centre, Dr K M Dhawale, director, ICR Mumbai and Dr Girish Gupta, Guarang research institute, Lucknow will be the resource persons.
The said conference will be inaugurated at 9.30 am on Saturday December 8.
Daijiworld.com, Dec 07, 2007

Labels: India

With the recent withdrawal of many popular over-the-counter cough and cold medicines for children, many parents are wondering what to do during this cold and flu season. Natural therapies provide great alternatives for treating colds, as well as ways to speed up recovery once a cold has been caught.
In October, an FDA committee recommended the use of common over-the-counter cough and cold remedies to be avoided in children younger than 6 years of age. U.S. health regulators are in the process of reviewing the safety of such products following reports of misuse leading to children’s deaths. The complete list of medication withdrawn is located at www.otcsafety.org/withdrawn.html.
The body has natural defense mechanisms that protect us from the different viruses and bacteria that contribute to the cause of the common cold. We are exposed to these pathogens daily; however most people only “catch a cold” a couple times a year. This implies that a decrease in our resistance is the major factor in “catching a cold.
Homeopathy is a great alternative used in the treatment of cold and flu symptoms. Homeopathy treats the whole person by using minute doses of natural substances to stimulate the body to heal itself. Homeopathic remedies are nontoxic, inexpensive, and highly effective when prescribed correctly. These medicines are so highly diluted that they are safe for babies, pregnant woman, and the elderly.
It is important for parents to realize that toddlers and infants are more susceptible to pathogens since their immune systems are not fully developed, and therefore it is especially important to supply them with proper nutrition and plenty of fluids which will prevent them from “catching a cold.”
Dr. Amanda Fey/Press & Sun-Bulletin, NY - Dec 4, 2007

Labels: USA

An excerpt from The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy, by Dana Ullman.

Conventional medicine adherents have consistently asserted that its methods are scientifically verified, and they have ridiculed other methods that are suggested to have therapeutic or curative effects. In fact, conventional physicians have consistently worked to disallow competitors, even viciously attacking those in their own profession who have questioned conventional treatments or provided alternative modalities.
And yet, strangely enough, whatever has been in vogue in conventional medicine in one decade has been declared ineffective, dangerous, and sometimes barbaric in the ensuing decades. Surprisingly, despite this pattern in history, proponents and defenders of "scientific medicine" tend to have little or no humility, continually asserting that today's cure is truly effective.
The good news about conventional medicine and one of its remarkable features for which it should be honored is its history of consistently and repeatedly disproving its own treatments. The fact that only a handful of conventional drugs have survived thirty or more years is strong testament to the fact that conventional medicine is honorable enough to acknowledge its mistakes.
Medical history uncovers an obvious pattern in the discovery and application of drug treatments. Initially, there is great excitement about a new drug's discovery. Research has seemingly proven its safety and efficacy and leads to widespread appreciation for the drug's ability to provide relief. Over time, there are minor concerns about the drug's side effects, until more research and clinical practice uncover more serious concerns about its side effects. Then, more research and clinical experience lead to more serious questions about the drug's real safety and efficacy, until there is general acknowledgment that the drug doesn't work as well as previously assumed, and there is recognition of an increasingly long list of serious side effects over time. However, these problems are not really problems because a new drug emerges, with short-term research that suggests it is a better drug after all. That is, until new research con- firms that it is neither as effective nor as safe as previously thought. And the cycle has continued like this for a century or more.
Like the fashion industry with its regular changes in style, the drug industry makes its profits on the newest drugs rather than on the older ones -- and not just any profits, but sickeningly high profits.
In 2002, the combined profits ($35.9 billion) of the ten largest drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the combined profits ($33.7 billion) of the remaining 490 companies together (Angell, 2004, 11).1 The only reason these drug companies did not maintain this shocking financial advantage is that the oil companies' profits have increased considerably with the Iraq War, thus raising the 490 non-drug companies' profits slightly higher. But then again, one would assume that the profits of 490 of the largest companies in the world would be substantially more than just ten companies in one commercial field. This economic information is important, even essential, because learning how to separate the "science" of medicine from the business of medicine has never been more difficult. The combined efforts of the drug companies and the medical profession, which together may be called the "medicalindustrial complex," have been wonderfully effective in convincing consumers worldwide that modern medicine is the most scientific discipline that has ever existed. Before discussing homeopathy, it is important, if not necessary, to raise basic questions about what "scientific"medicine is -- and is not.
Dana Ullman, North Atlantic Books/AlterNet, CA - Dec 3, 2007

Labels: USA