"The EU clinical trials database is not available to the public because drug companies “need to protect commercially sensitive information about drug developments”"

It doesn't need to be. It just needs to be available to other researchers so they can see all the relevant results, good or bad.

"Then you feel better, but not because of the pill, but because of the natural cycle of the disease.  This argument can just as easily be laid at the door of conventional medicine."

Absolutely true. Which is one of the things randomised trials counters: not everyone in both the control and treatment groups would get better on their own.

"With the rise of mass production, the nascent pharmaceutical industry needed to establish its products were solutions to mass health problems."

Many alternative therapies are just as guilty of this by claiming everything from a bad mood to a mild headache has some underlying cause.

"In truth, even the best medical trials establish only that a drug works for some people some of the time"

Indeed they do. They establish that the majority of people will see an improvement when taking the treatment, compared to similar people who do not. Homeopathy can't even say that.

"Well, you won’t know until you take it and, when you do, you may well “just feel better”.  But isn’t that what the homeopathic patient said, too?"

This is a deliberate misreading. Read Ben's views on the placebo effect - yes, homeopathy does make some people 'just feel better'. That's almost certainly placebo. But this in itself is valuable, although it raises an ethical minefield once homeopaths are aware that it's only placebo they're handing out.

"Well, you won’t know until you take it and, when you do, you may well “just feel better”.  But isn’t that what the homeopathic patient said, too?

The difference between medicine works better than a placebo for some people some of the time and homeopathy doesn't work better than a placebo for anybody anytime, should be obvious.

Homepathy isn't killing people. Homeopaths telling people to stop taking the medicine that is saving their lives, and take a sugar pill instead, is killing people.

I thought Ben managed to make this absolutely clear, but apparently you've still not understood the difference.

One of Ben Goldacre's main points was about the childish reactions of homeopaths to criticism and their unwillingness to engage in constructive debate.  Obviously not one that has been taken on board here.

"Homeopathy could be killing people, he argues, which is a bit strange because a minute ago he was telling us it was utterly ineffective."

Sounds like deliberate misunderstanding.

Another reading of that section is that homeopathy is ineffective, but taking it (e.g. for AIDS, malaria, cancer) instead of other medicines....could lead to the death of people who could otherwise have survived.

"If they published every trial, good and bad, the greater-than-placebo effect would disappear."

Once again, that's a deliberate misrepresentation of what Goldacre wrote. He doesn't hypothesise that the positive effect might disappear if you published more negative studies - he says, accurately, that the positive effect disappears when you exclude badly designed trials. There's no need to publish more negative results to show no effect from homeopathy - the studies we have show that already.

I think the most telling thing about this article is that you have failed to link to my original, where people can read what I said, rather than your bizarre interpretation of it. There is nothing to be afraid of in ideas, I am very interested in when people disagree with me and why, but your readers should not be denied information, so I hope you will be able to resist the urge to delete this link:

http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/

"Homeopathy could be killing people, he argues, which is a bit strange because a minute ago he was telling us it was utterly ineffective."

What are your views on, say, Peter Chappell claiming to be able to 'ameliorate AIDS in Africa' with specially encoded music? Or homeopathists telling travellers that their remedies will fill the malaria-shaped hole in their energy? Or advising parents not to give their child the MMR jab?

It's not as if these are 'rogue' homeopathists, either - the SoH failed to discipline members caught out by the Newsnight/SAS malaria sting and they are holding the AIDS symposium that features Peter Chappell's specially encoded musical AIDS cure.

Well, homeopathy appears to have been 'utterly ineffective' - in the case of this unfortunate baby girl. An inquest into her death held recently heard very upsetting testimony: http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=434278 .

"Another doctor, paediatric specialist Gary Williams, on Tuesday gave evidence linking Gloria's severe eczema to her reduced functions.

Dr Williams treated Gloria between the time she arrived at Sydney Children's Hospital on May 5, 2002, and her death three days later from sepsis - bacterial infections.

As a result of his findings, Dr Williams referred his concerns about Gloria's condition and subsequent death to the coroner.

When weighed at six months, Gloria was 6.1kg, but at nine months, days before her death, she weighed just 5.4kg.

The baby's skin was so dry it had split in many areas including around her anus, with Dr Williams noting "pain ++" and "severe malnutrition" in his notes.

"There was widespread fissuring around the body due, I think, to the eczema," Dr Williams said.

"This was a source of pain and potentially a source of bacterial entry into the bloodstream."

Gloria had low sodium, albumin and phosphate levels and elevated coagulopathy, he said.

"Her (coagulopathy) was elevated to a significant degree ... increases the disposition to bleed and means the blood is less likely to clot," Dr Williams said.

"That albumin level is extremely low. I've been treating children for 12 years and only seen two or three children with an albumin of that degree."

Furthermore, Gloria's low phosphate level could be a marker of nutritional status and renal function, Dr Williams said.

Tests also showed Gloria was deficient in zinc, protein and vitamin A.

The inquest was on Monday told the baby had been treated with homeopathic remedies by her father before she died, and had also received homeopathic and naturopathic treatment from an uncle in India in 2002..."

Dangerous, in my book. And hard to forgive.

I'm saddened by the quality of your entry into the debate, Bryan (although not disappointed, given that it's no more egregious than your commentary on everything else). You offer a very poor representation of the Guardian article, which acknowledges that homeopathy is a very successful placebo, but questions whether it is appropriate for a medical doctor to offer a placebo treatment which would entail him or her lying to their patient. This displays an attitude of self-criticism, honesty to the patient, and considered debate which is the essence of science, and wholly lacking from your response.

Your post contains no argument, only attitude. The tu quoque arguments you advance - that placebo, publication bias, and reversion to the mean all apply to conventional medicine too - only try discredit conventional medicine. They do not support the efficacy of homeopathy, and with good reason, because homeopathy has no efficacy beyond the placebo effect.

Evidence based medicine allows medical practitioners to judge what remedies are most likely to make a patient "feel better". The checks and balances of medical research offer a guide to the individual physician dealing with an individual patient. Complementary medicine has no such guide and no such self-critical culture, and until practitioners of complementary therapies allow themselves to be held to thorough evidential standards, they are guilty at best of embroiling their patients in a fantasy, and at worst of perpetrating deceptions on the vulnerable.

Can you please be specific about which aspects of my article do you find to be partial, Bryan?

(Also, can I suggest that it might be helpful for your readers if you put the link to my article in the main body of your original article, only because your post was about my piece, so it seems very strange to me not to have it linked there).

Regression to the mean can be the case where patients are treated with conventional methods, true. Of course, all those tedious EBM types look for other evidence that a patient's condition is changing - such as a change in the T-cell count in those with HIV/AIDS.

Homeopaths don't bother with this because:-

1. The vast majority of them are incapable of carrying out such tests.

2. They have decided they already know the truth through intuition and magical thinking.

You said "even the best medical trials establish only that a drug works for some people some of the time" which is patently not true. The best medical trials identify drugs which work for most people most of the time.

Homeopathy only 'works' for some people some of the time, which is also what a placebo can manage.

.. all of your arguments for homeopathy seem to be that 'conventional' medicine is 'just as bad'.

Apart form pointing out the obvious fact that 'two wrongs don't make a right' - you seem to have overlooked Ben Goldacre's principle point that science ensures that 'conventional' medicine is self-critical, and that much of the scientific literature is devoted to questioning and testing the claims of drug companies.

This simply isn't true in the world of homeopathy - where any of the literature looks rather more like straightforward marketing, and the response to any criticism is self-pity at best...

You say that 'medicine can't be shoehorned into science'.

You don't explain why so it appears you are relying entirely on 'argument by analogy'. If so could I join in by pointing out that the reason homeopathy can't be 'shoehorned into science' is that is an archaic 'Ugly Sister' whose feet won't fit, and won't stand any criticism of her 'beauty'.

Tp Bryan: the real tragedy here is that this suffering and death was almost certainly preventable - her parents failed to take her to two appointments made with a specialist dermatologist, by two different doctors - see here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/death-of-baby-gloria-sparks-hunt-for-truth/2007/11/05/1194117959740.html

And here, for a child who was put at similar risk, by a homeopath: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2341009.stm . Happily, this young boy did get a referral to a specialist paediatric dermatologist, which brought the condition under control.  

Tp Bryan: the real tragedy here is that this suffering and death was almost certainly preventable - her parents failed to take her to two appointments made with a specialist dermatologist, by two different doctors - see here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/death-of-baby-gloria-sparks-hunt-for-truth/2007/11/05/1194117959740.html

And here, for a child who was put at similar risk, by a homeopath: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2341009.stm . Happily, this young boy did get a referral to a specialist paediatric dermatologist, which brought the condition under control.  

Inquest into the death of Gloria Thomas has reached a conclusion: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html?s_cid=rss_

"...Gloria Thomas died in May 2002 in Sydney Children's Hospital of sepsis, or bacterial infections.

The nine-month-old, who was severely malnourished, had been suffering from such terrible eczema that much of her skin was split.

The inquest at Glebe Coroner's Court has been told the cracks in her skin caused the baby agonising pain and were a potential source of entry for the bacteria that killed her.

Parents Thomas Sam, a homeopath, and IT professional Manju Samuel treated her with homeopathic remedies rather than her prescribed medication.

State Coroner Mary Jerram terminated the inquest today after finding there was a reasonable prospect the evidence presented to the inquiry could convince a jury to convict "a known person or persons of a serious crime"..."

Terribly sad for all concerned.

i see, bryan, that you are so concerned about the risk of people reading my piece that you still don't want to link it from your blog, where you misrepresent it, and dodge the central points.

perhaps you should change the name of your blog to: "what WDDTY don't tell you".

for anyone who wishes to know what my concerns were, and what i considered to be beneficial about homeopathy, you can find it here:

http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/

it's the blog that WDDTY didn't want you to read!

still, good to see you're still checking in.

http://community.wddty.com/user/Profile.aspx?UserID=2105

Bryan Hubbard:

Member since   23/10/2006 10:13:56

Last visited 19/11/2007 17:51:12

I don't see how referring to other cases of 'iatrogenic death' is any kind of sensible comment on the *preventable* death of a baby, which a coroner has found to be a consequence of her misguided parents' refusal of conventional treatment in favour of homeopathy. A death preceded by agony, which sends shudders of horror through anybody with experience of severe eczema. The fact that other unfortunate people have died though medical mistakes, adverse drug reactions etc does not detract one bit from the enormity of what befell this child.

- no Claire But it shows that mistakes are made and homeopaths are not the only ones making them.  

- and no John homeopaths don't do T-Cell count tests, they rely on the specialist teams at the hospitals just as most Doctors do.

It would be great if the scientific community could accept that just as the placebo effect cannot be "scientifically" explained nor can homeopathy, but it does work and maybe one day soon we will be able to satisfactorily show you how it works.

Then we could integrate alternative medicines such as homeopathy into the NHS and have a much more cost effective service with more choice for patients and hopefully less pathology, (in this instance patients could even be closely monitored by Doctors during visits as well to make sure no bad practice was taking place).  Even if the Doctors just wanted to pass on their "incurable" or heart sink cases - ones which they can see no solution for and may prove to be a drain on their time and finances, I am sure alternative therapists would be happy to take on these cases.  

I think it is time Doctors and scientists understood that homeopaths and alternative therapists don't want to argue about this, they want to be given the chance to work together to help people whether the Dr believes it is placebo or not.  

In India homeopathy has been accepted and most homeopaths trained Doctors.  

The system works and is probably alot more cost effective to run which is important in a country with such a large demographic.

I also think it is time to explain that sometimes Doctors and probably even more so paramedics use an awful lot of "magic things" like intuition and its called gut instinct  and it comes from reading a lot of books on pathology etc and learning about various medicines and seeing a lot of cases and is not that wierd.

"- no Claire But it shows that mistakes are made and homeopaths are not the only ones making them."

Of course mistakes are made: nobody is saying that conventional medicine is error free or even that scientists pretend to know all the answers. But say, for instance, a similarly afflicted child  died due to negligent care by a dermatologist. Given that death from eczema is actually rare, and that the *preventable* death of a child is regarded as a serious clinical incident , this putative doctor could expect to be held to account and to be severely criticised by professional colleagues; loss of livelihood or suspension could be a consequence. Perhaps I've missed something, but so far I'm not aware of an outcry from supporters of homeopathy outraged about the fate of Gloria Thomas.

"Magic" is just science unexplained.  Today's magic - tomorrow's science.  Why not spend more time trying to understand how the "magic" of homeopathy works?  Right now, getting some comments from medically qualified homeopaths would be very helpful.  

Dear Bryan

Ben has rightly criticised you for not referencing his piece; you have apologised for this and then go on to compund your error by not providing link to any of the trials you then discuss!

Why not?  Are you afriaid people wil read them themselves and question your interpretation?

For instance, the "University of Munich" study you cite (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697022939/abstract) ALSO states "However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" - why did that little gem not get included in your reply?

Even better, Linde (the key author in this paper) has revisited the data - se a summary here:  http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?View=Full&ID=11999000167

Note the revised findings.   Also note the fairly damning commentary on the methodology of the trial, including that statement "the assumption that a double blind trial involves an unbiased method of allocation is questionable because blinding usually refers to assessment of outcomes rather than allocation concealment."

That is the tricky part about "proper" science - you can't cherry pick the data.

Would you please now supply your references?  I suspect you other papers are similarly flawed.

Perhaps I can add something to this debate?  I have researched homepathy amongst other alternative therapies and the following is taken from my website as to how homepathy is supposed to work:

"Homeopathy was founded by the celebrated German Physician Samuel Hahnemann. Dr. Hahnemann’s theory was that a substance in large doses produces symptoms of an illness, but the same substance in very minute doses cures it. Therefore, a smaller dose of a substance that caused disease could stimulate the body to fight the disease.

His theory was borne out by years of experiments with hundreds of substances that produced similar results. Based on this work he founded the idea and principles of homeopathy.

The Principles of Homeopathy

Like Cures Like

Dr Hahnemann referred to this phenomenon as the Law of Similars, a principle recognized in the fourth century. This law is also the theory behind vaccines of physicians, who “immunize” the body with minute traces of a disease like a virus, to strengthen the immune response to the actual disease. Allergies are treated in a similar way by introducing minute quantities of the allergen into the body to boost tolerance.

The more dilute the remedy, the greater the potency

Most people believe that the higher the dose of a medicine, the greater the effect. However, the opposite is true in homeopathy. Dr Hahnemann discovered this Law by experimenting with higher and higher dilutions of substances to avoid toxic side effects.

Homeopathic remedies are usually prepared through a process of diluting with pure water or alcohol. They can be diluted to such an extent that literally no molecules of the original substance remain. Yet, the more dilute it gets, the more potent it becomes.

This phenomenon has held great fascination among practitioners and researchers (as well as earning criticism by the medical profession). The explanation of this therapeutic action on such high dilutions appears to lie in the field of quantum physics and the emerging field of energy medicine.

Despite no molecules remaining of the original substance in a remedy, a study using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) conducted at Harvard University, demonstrated distinctive readings of subatomic activity in 23 homeopathic remedies, and gave off measurable electromagnetic signals.

This study means that far from “nothing” remaining in the homeopathic remedies, a remedy may be sending an electromagnetic “message” to the body that matches the frequency or pattern of an illness to stimulate the body’s natural healing."

Incidentally about 15 years ago my sister had a kind of auto-immune disease with severe arthritic symptoms when she was in her thirties.  The doctors couldn't find out what it was despite running a whole range of tests on her and were treating her symptoms with steroids, which worked for a time but were becoming more and more ineffective.  She eventually went to a homeopath who cured her  symptoms, and it hasn't come back since then.   Incidentally I have read also about young  babies being cured of severe eczema - how does the placebo effect work in this instance since a young baby does not have the understanding of what a placebo is?

I (and all my colleages after a quick poll) would have sincere and genuine respect for any homeopath who is willing to speak critically (for one) about their methods (as scientist do for a living) and basically admit that much of it is unproven, but yet there is somethere there, a hypothesis to be explored (..again).

Does such a position exist within the word of homeopathy?  I really wouldn't have to go any further than a science PhD student to find that sort of self critisim in evidence based medicine (their livliehoods depend on being able to take such criticism!).

Do we have even one such homeopath here?  Someone who is happy to open their methods up to study? That would be brave and refreshing and worthy or the uttmost respect.  

If not, ask yourself why not.  Then ask again because it is important.

@ Susan Insole

I have also been given personal accounts of childhood eczema being 'cured' by homeopathy. However, in all of these anecdotal examples, a dairy free diet was also prescribed and adhered to. As others have repeatedly pointed out, there is no reliable evidence for efficacy of homeopathic interventions. However, there is a body of evidence regarding the link between food allergy and intractable infantile eczema. These children  should be getting a proper diagnosis and, if dietary avoidance is indicated, it should be done under appropriate supervision to avoid malnutrition and, importantly, so that there is awareness of the possible risks of accidental exposure to the allergenic food and how to cope with such a reaction. Access to such clinical care can be a tall order at present in the UK (cf. recent House of Lords report on Allergy) and it appears that this deficiency is regarded as an opportunity by alternative therapists, e.g. a press release issued by the Society of Homeopaths upon the publication of the HoL allergy report. This has since been removed from their site but still available here: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/society-of-homeopaths-make-themselves-look-silly/

Dear Harradine

There is indeed an awful lot of effort going on amongst the homeopathic community to demonstrate how homeopathy works.  

We are very much aware that the effects are unproven in the scientific world and this seems to be the only thing which is holding it back from acceptance, so of course it is in our interest to prove it is not just in people's minds.

however until this happens all we can do is go upon evidence fed back to us by patients and stories like Susan's.

The Russian company MATERIA MEDICA has entered into a contract with the UK company to manufacture their homeopathic antibodies (look up MATERIA MEDICA on the internet).  It appears that they have identified the antibodies associated with specific homeopathic remedies and have developed manufacturing technology. These 'polyclonal' antibodies are being used in pharmaceuticals which now sell on the Russian market.

As a development major pharmaceutical companies such as GSK are now putting significant research into these 'polyclonal' antibodies which until now were considered to be of little value.

The good news: this supports the claims for homeopathic remedies.

The bad news: it highlights the limitations of a homeopath - 'humans make mistakes' - and it also means that such remedies function by the same on-size-fits-all approach as drugs.

Graham

@ Rachel

your answer to Harradine appears to recommend suspending disbelief until the evidence eventually arrives and to rely instead on anecdotes. Perhaps you should re-read Dr Goldacre's article (linked above) to understand why this is problematic to people who value rational thought and evidence.

Also, this is the only discussion among homeopaths I have seen of the case of the baby who died due to complications of severe eczema: http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6923 . There may well be others of which I am unaware. If so, I would hope that sincere, calm reflection and critical self-appraisal are more in evidence than on the forum I've linked to.

@Graham,

I doubt the UK company is manufacturing 'homeopathic' antibodies, rather it is supplying polyclonal antibodies to Materia Medica, see the press release: http://www.angelbio.com/news.asp?id=123 . Monoclonal antibodies have indeed hogged the headlines over the last decade but polyclonal antibodies are, as you say, being researched for therapeutic potential, cf. this 2006 review: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T64-4K76Y8X-D&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cecd84ca5b9d6eecb85b0ad7bcfe4489 . I don't see how this links to homeopathy.

@Graham again -

do you have a specific reference for GSK researching polyclonal antibodies? I ask only because I am aware of the existence of a polyclonal antibody class called GSK 3, but in this instance the intitials GSK stand for Glycogen Synthase Kinase, not GlaxoSmithKline, the Big Pharma - see e.g. here: http://biomeda.com/14-3-3-beta.V11000.html

Many people (like me) try homeopathy not as an alternative to conventional medicine, but as a last resort - when conventional medicine has failed.

I know it worked for me and that is the only evidence I need.

I was ill, had homeopathy, got better. For me, case proven.

Is it un-scientific? maybe, probably, I don't know....does it matter to me? No.

Oops, the above post seems to have lost a bit: it should read: "...because I am aware of the existence of a polyclonal antibody class called GSK-3. The initials GSK stand for glycogen synthase kinase, not GlaxoSmithKline, the Big Pharma..."

Also, the link to the Angel Biotech press release has disappeared from my original post: here it is again

http://www.angelbio.com/news.asp?id=111

It's regarding their agreement with Materia Medica, to supply GMP polyclonal antibodies

Something strange going on with how my comments are appearing!

Comment at 11:46 has lost some information.

I questioned GSK's involvment in polyclonal antibodies for this reason.

I am aware of a class of these antibodies called GSK-3

GSK in this instance being Glycogen Synthase Kinase

not GlaxoSmithKline

hope that does it,

sorry for all the truncated posts!

Dear Harradine

There is indeed an awful lot of effort going on amongst the homeopathic community to demonstrate how homeopathy works.  

We are very much aware that the effects are unproven in the scientific world and this seems to be the only thing which is holding it back from acceptance, so of course it is in our interest to prove it is not just in people's minds.

however until this happens all we can do is go upon evidence fed back to us by patients and stories like Susan's.

I was simply relaying my own positive experience of using homeopathy and feel sorry that Claire has chosen to respond to that with sarcasm.

@ C O'Dell

my comment referred to the comment I made at 11:32, about GSK-3 polyclonal antibodies, which is displaying a bit strangely, thus missing a piece of information. When I submitted my comment, yours (11:42) wasn't visible to me.

It would be great if a homeopath could join this forum!  I have never studied it but I do know it works when I saw my sister recover.  HOW it works is not something that can be answered yet - (and I'm sure my sister doesn't care) but I am sure it will be someday. I do know she had major arthritic symptoms where she found it hard to get out of bed in the morning without help and went from being a healthy and active thirty-something to be almost crippled - Until she went to a homeopath as a last resort. She has been fine ever since.

It should definitely be studied more as I am sure it has a lot of value. It took about 50 years and countless deaths before it was found that vitamin C cured scurvy - and I'm sure it will take the same amount of time before homeopathy will be accepted into mainstream medicine. The human body is so very intricate and science does not really understand everything about what makes it work - but we should not dismiss something that works  - and on the whole does no real lasting harm, despite being baffled about the machinations of HOW it works.

Prescription drugs have killed and permanently damaged so many people - but there is not half of the outcry about that than there is in just one tragic case of a baby dying with eczema whose parents foolishly decided not to seek further help.

The conventional industry would say anything to wipe out any homeopathic or alternative natural treatments. If they don't, they lose profit. From my experience, many of the doctors don't care about patients recovering, as long as they can prescribe their drugs (and hence profit). My doctor gives me no valid reason to take conventional treatment. I have breast cancer since 2002 and take alternative treatment. My doctor wanted me to take tamoxifen which I refused after doing some research on it. He could not give me any real reason why I should put this nasty drug in my body. I asked him what will it really do for me and he said there are no guarantees. Whenever I asked him any questions, he was very vague. I asked him outright, that I had heard that surgery can make the cancer spread. He said it can!!! But the doctors don't tell this to  the patients!! Don't we have a right to the full story?? It makes me sick.

Goldacre is an Allopath, I cover his antics here, more to follow in due course http://www.whale.to/b/goldacre_h.html

From whale's blog: "with no right of reply by homeopathy". Actually there has been at least one (preposterous) response printed in the Guardian: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/denis_maceoin/2007/11/your_ignorance_is_showing.html

There was also a piece by Jeanette Winterson which appeared before Ben's article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2209998,00.html

Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble. Oh and I see you are an AIDS denialist too, fantastic!

Quote from whale blog

"The only people who care about and hate anti-vaccinists and alternative medicine are pharma boys."

Simply just wrong.  The people who criticise alternative medical practicioners are mostly scientists, academic as well as inudstrial, who do so because this is what they do all day, day in day out to each other- criticise and ask for evidence.  The entire point of their lives is research, the process of gathering and criticing evidence.  They get rather irritated by any group that makes claims yet argues that the need for evidence does not apply to them.  Believe there is a conspiriacy if you wish, but that's the reality.  If homeopaths as a group agreed that their methods should be properly tested and research, then they would not recieve any critisicm at all, they would be seen as rational people.  Unless they then denied or ignmored what the results of research were saying, in which case they will have proper thinking round on them again!  

If you really must beleive in a conspiriacy, then far closer to the truth is that there is a conspiracy of irrational thinkiers depserate to undermine the scientific method because if makes them sound silly, yet borrow as much or its terms to tr to fool an otherwise unkwoling public that their metods truely do work.  Dishonest and very transparent, but sadly not to those they target.  

The only people who calle thesmelves alternative health practicioners are those who cannot provide any evidence or argue that it is not necessary.  All other matters are irrelevant.  Lets see the evidence, the least possible corrupted or biased request imaginable!

Evidence, lets see it.  

Dear Harradine

You have HAD evidence in this blog! Several contributors have told of their own healing experiences or those of people they know. Are they to be dismissed as liars? And what of the list of liars in the world of scientific research?

The bottom line is, as someone early in this blog stated, that healing is an art, and has always been. Why should the particular way of interpreting the world called science need to impose itself on those who offer and experience healing otherwise?  

And I have treied several time now to explain, personal accounts of healing experiences constitute what is formally known as anecdotal evidence.  This sort of evidence on its own is not enough to provide conclusive support that homeopathy does anything more than placebo.  It can generate hypoetheses (ie.e, that homepathy works), which can then be tested using more robt methods.  Either you want to get to the truth ior you don't, and anecdotal evidencw ill not get you there.  

Science does not try to impose itself on anyone.  What is does do it ask people to support what theysay with evidence (and to take the trouble to understand the difference between good evidence and bas..see above).  It expects that people who claim to be able to heal the sick have some way of substantiating this.  It expects people who make scientific claims (as homepaths sometimes do) to provide evidence for them.  

I have no problem at all with homeopthy or people feeling that it helps them.  Just the bogus claims about the nature of these effects.  But I do not restrict skepticism to homepaths.  It extends to everyone.  I just so happens that alternative health practicioners have a particularly bad track record when anyone expects them to provide robust evidence, and case reports are not it.  

Who is Jeanette Winterson?  A pusher of genocidal AIDS drugs it seems, hardly someone to defend homeopathy!: "As a patron of Fotac (Friends of the Treatment Action Campaign) that has been fighting President Mbeke's lunatic insistence that HIV sufferers just need Vitamin C and a good diet, I am dismayed by any claim that may deter HIV sufferers from taking anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs)"

Neat trick to use an Allopathic drug pusher to defend Homeopathy.

Since we know Vitamin C is good cure for polio, hepatitis, meningitis etc, then he seems to be dead right, while we all know AZT has killed 400,000 at may last count about 10 years ago.  I was always curious as to why anyone would think a chemo drug would kill a so called virus?

"The people who criticise alternative medical practicioners are mostly scientists, academic as well as inudstrial, who do so because this is what they do all day, day in day out to each other- criticise and ask for evidence.  The entire point of their lives is research, the process of gathering and criticing evidence"

Rubbish, all Pharma boys, lets have a list of them.  Sense about Science is a classic collection of pharma boys.

AIDS denialist--just a new Allopathic invented  term in the ad hominem lexicon, that Allopaths throw at the opposition, to go with Quack, Crank, Conspiracy Theorist, Anti-Vaccine nut, etc.

ARV & AZT genocide http://www.whale.to/a/arv_genocide.html http://www.whale.to/a/azt_h.html

And Allopathy kills 780,000 people every year in the uSA http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html

Hardly people to trust over AIDS

[2003] Depopulation and HIV by Jon Rappoport  "My book instead proved that HIV - wherever it came from - was a harmless  retrovirus that was being used as a cover story to explain/conceal an  emerging depopulation operation in the Third World. HIV was also a cover for  other agendas outside the Third World. As long as AIDS is the target of  WHO/UN "humanitarian" efforts, the actual causes - which are easily  reversible - of death in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are allowed to remain and fester and expand."   http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport.html

There is a conspiracy, and it is very easy to expose

Just 4 in the medical world:

1.Monopoly  http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy_h.html

2.cancer  http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

3.Vitamin C  http://www.whale.to/a/vit_c_cons.html

4. Vaccine hoax http://www.whale.to/b/hoax1.html

and so on, and try and get your head around the terms 'bleeding obvious', and 'overwhelming evidence'

To Harradine, Before the drug industry took over, how did people cure themselves? Well, I believe that it was done with herbs, homeopathic, Ayurveda etc. The use of these have been around for centuries unlike drugs and surgery. There must be some reason that they have been used for so long? It must have worked! Our ancestors knew how to treat illnesses. I think it's common sense to follow them. How many things do we learn in life from our parents? We may not necessarily know the reason, but we know it works. Therefore you don't necessarily need written evidence, but you follow what has been done for centuries because that IS the evidence! The fact that it has been used for so long - that is the best "clinical trial". Anyway, if you have a look around the web for some particular alternative treatment, chances are you will see papers and books written (as WHALE has very well pointed out) with evidence that these things do work. And you will see so many  people who have tried it, confirming that it works. I myself have been offered convectional treatment and the doctors stumble embarrassingly over the words when I ask them how will it help me, what are the guarantees and what are the risks. They have always neglected to inform me about the risks. And when I ask about them, they tell me as if they are telling me something trivial, maybe to try and make me think it is not important. I am still in shock after 6 years of illness, how heartless the medical industry is. I would not have realized without having direct experience. Can you believe, one doctor told me "If you die and don't take conventional treatment, then it will look bad on me". Would you trust someone like that? All the doctors I have seen, have said something heartless at some point or other. My conclusion is that look after your own health naturally, because the medical industry will not help.

That's an interesting question.  Now our life expectancy is longer than it has ever, ever been.  Since homeopathy has been around for so long, why is this the case?  Is modern homeopathy the reason for this?

lets make this very, very clear.  Modern medical opinion is very clear- look after yourself, please try and avoid even needing to see your doctor.  Live well, eat well, excerise, sleep and avoid stress.  take good take.  But when all else fails, let us give you options, evidence based treatments that work.  How is that a biased view, or a corrupted one?  Think about it.

People have been keeping rabbits feet around them to ward off illness for centuries.  That doesn't mean they work.

How is a GP under the influence of a pharma company when the advise good diet and excercie (which they all do)?  How are they when they recommend fidning ways of reducing stress?  This is what is known as first line treatment.  

But if a patient arrives with an illness tht these interventions cannot treat, what should they do?  Advise evidence based, or non-evidence based treatments?  What would be the right thing to do and the right thing to advise others to do?

What if both worked?- complimentary medicine, working with evidence based medicine?  (ofcourse complimentary medicine makes people feel better, so does placebo!  Am I saying placebo is a bad thing?  Not on your life!!!  Its a truly amazing thing!  Lets learn how to make the most of it!!!  But lets use evidence!  Oh, that's when you homeopaths could be SO useful!!, why not join in!?

Rather than be alternative.  Denying that evidence based medicine works is the same as saying evidence doesn't work, and you really don't want to (although some have already) go down that road. Then you could never, ever talk of evidence since you will have discredited its very value or requirment.  Then we would be in a dark place.  We've had them before, the last one being known as the Dark Ages.

REPLY to Harradine blog entry:

I think there are many doctors that take up medicine for genuine reasons, i.e. they want to do good for others in need. These are the ones that do the right thing and talk about exercise, eating well etc. But there are others that do medicine for purely personal gain (my GP has never once asked me about exercise, eating etc.). Those are the ones that ignore facts that any benefits are not enough to outweigh the negatives. I think in the case of cancer, this is likely to be true as I have done research on it for the last 6 years. I have read that there are doctors that leave the medical industry after having realised after many years, that the drugs are not really working (in the case of cancer treatments).

I think people did not live as long before because of poor diet and sanitation. Not because the alternative treatments did not work. If a person becomes too ill, then it is too late to do anything (using either conventional or alternative).

I think biased views are given by doctors because they are trained only in drugs and surgery. They don't usually know anything about any alternative treatments. (I don't think they are even allowed to give alternative treatment advice, as I understand it, their job would be on the line). So no choice is given to the patient.

Of course, there are many who believe in conventional treatment. So there should be a choice given. Alternative treatments should be allowed in the mainstream.

The comment about rabbits feet being used to ward of illnesses. No one said everything used worked. Anyway, I would not consider rabbits feet as alternative medicine. Most believers would not consider animal parts as treatments. You have to use common sense when deciding what to try.

My opinion is that drugs and surgery have been taken too far. The system has lost the plot. It should only be used as a last resort and people should know about both alternative and conventional treatments and they should be told all the available facts. Then the person can make a decision as to whether to use one or the other or both. Currently, we are not given the basic human right of choice. If you choose alternative treatments today, then you are turned away and have to find your own way with little support.

As for the evidence you mentioned, how much real evidence is there that conventional treatments really work? It's only been around for a short time. For example, cancer treatments are considered successful, if the patient is still alive in 5 years. That's it! I have taken no conventional treatments for my cancer and its coming up to 7 years now. Also, if a cancer patient should die of a heart problem etc. from the chemo/radiation, then statistically they are put in the died of heart problem category, not in the cancer category. Isn't that misleading? Perhaps there is   not as much statistics out there for alternative treatments. But for me, knowing that it has been used for centuries and I have seen some of it work and read other people's success stories, makes me lean heavily towards it. To me, it's not worth poisoning my body with these conventional poisons (and they are poisons!). However, everyone should have equal unbiased choice.

Hello Shelia and thanks for you reply.

I definitely agree that medical doctors are a mixed bag.  Some are truly able, come obviously incapable.  Its sad, but true.

I think alternative treatments have a place, but as long as that place is kept withing the realms of reason.  For example, if someone appears at the emergency room with a great through their body, of course homeopathy would not be a good idea (nor would it claim to be).

By that same logic, what about someone with a serious wound infection?  Homeopathy or antibiotics?  I would still say antibiotic, but you see my point.

We can extend this further to illnesses where it might be said that conventional medicine can, and often has offered little help.  Perhaps then alternative medicine can.  Perhaps its can't, but when all else fails, it definitely wont do any harm and often does some good.

My point is, why not combine the two?  

I beleive the most rational approach is to use evidence based medicine where appopriate, and when it fails or simple doesn't work, then use other means.  But better still, combine the two.  A whole healing experience.  Placebo effect maximinsed alongside whateever help science can offer.

Why I intervene againt alternative medicine is when some argue that their methods take paramount in every example.  When severe epilepsy is always best treated with diet, when diabetes, or high blood pressure should only ever reach for homeopathy and never ever approach evidence based treatment.  I just think that is irrational.  Both can work, and work weel in their place.

I would no more recommoned drug therpay for a common cold (which I don't) than I would expect homeopaths to be able to treat acute physical trauma (which they don't claim either).  But when either group, or anyone, claims something beyond its remit, its evidence base, then I think they have gone to far.

"complimentary medicine, working with evidence based medicine"

I love those terms

Complementary medicine: Allopathic created term for alternative medicine (non-Allopathic med) that will work with Allopathy without rocking the Allopathic boat.

A crumb, rather like charity work, so you look good.

Evidence based medicine:  This is a propaganda term for Allopathic medicine.

http://www.whale.to/a/evidence_based.html

which implies with capital letters that only it is based on sound science. Complete opposite is closer to the truth.

"I think alternative treatments have a place, but as long as that place is kept withing the realms of reason."

LOL.  Spoken like a true monopolist http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy_h.html

"How is a GP under the influence of a pharma company when the advise good diet and excercie."

LOL!  they are allowed a few minutes a day of pseuo-independent thought, while they dish out the drugs.

If they did proper diet therapy, they would be a Natural Hygientist or Naturopath, on £15,000? a year instead of £100,000.  And the drug companies would go bust.

Lip service.

"Modern medical opinion is very clear- look after yourself"

Modern med--Allopathy.

Lip service, like bottlefeeding, if they had any INTENT in their opinions

over 90-99% would be breastfeeding, and no one would be eating junk food.  

End of bottlefeeding, end of sick kids, way less doc visits.

End of junk food--ditto.  One MD even promotes sugar.

"They are running a monopoly and they will lie, cheat and steal to keep it that way."---Dr Eva Snead

" I am still in shock after 6 years of illness, how heartless the medical industry is...

I think there are many doctors that take up medicine for genuine reasons"

Allopathy at its core is psychopathic.

It is designed purely for money, and the vaccines create the disease that they

then feed off http://www.whale.to/a/vax_dis.html

Pharam drugs are designed to palliate not cure. Nutrients, naturopathy or

herbs could easily replace allopathy. It is all about patents.

udo Erasmus said in his class of 68 med students, only him

and one other weren't in it for the money.

It is designed to attract academic intelligence, with good memory.

And filters out the emotionally intelligent, ie the ones with heart.

Generally speaking, and the heartless ones run the show.

"Medical school does its best to turn smart students stupid, honest students

corrupt and healthy students sick. It isn't very hard to turn a smart student

into a stupid one. First of all, the admissions people make sure the professors

will get weak-willed, authority-abiding students to work on. Then they give them

a curriculum that is absolutely meaningless as far as healing or health are concerned."--Dr mendelsohn http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes20.html

psychopaths know how to break people and brainwash them.

"The American Medical Association is fashioned to prescribe drugs and

perform various treatments that although they may be unsuspecting, tend to

weed out the weaker species. The Council views the AMA's 'modern medicine' as barbaric."--Taylor http://www.whale.to/v/quotes2.html

Dear All,

Diseases, epidemics, viruses...they all appear and disappear for a reason. Look at the animal world it heals itself time and time again. It's the same for humans only we create more threaths to become ill (mentally or physically) by treating each other in different ways (abuse etc) and raising children when we're not fit and/or have the means to care for them. Trying to save an 20 weeks old foetus is asking for trouble. In this over-consuming world it's no surprise people get ill. It's down to yourself to treat your body and the people around you the way it was intended with love and respect.

I agree.  We all have a personal responsibility for our health.  What research and medical advise can do best is provide information on what is good health advice and what isn't.  Drug therpay is only a part of medicine.  Definitely not the be all and end all and no substitute for a good life style for most people.

Whale, you use the word allopath a lot.  You advise treatments such as megadose vitamin C for serious infection.  Although that is not evidence based that is an example of allopathy.  

I have been most interested in this debate.  To Sheila - Well done for overcoming  cancer against your doctor's advice (mine more or less told me I was signing my own death warrant) keep well - 7 years is far better than medical treatment would give.  I'm 3 and a half years into the 5 but I am sure I'll make it way past that - and so will you - keep well!

Its about time we had a REALLY intelligent debate about alternative medicine.  It is a fact that it has been around a lot longer than science based medicine.  The trouble with science is that it is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by asking for scientific evidence from alternative medicine.  IF everything was a level playing field - perhaps it would have some chance of providing it - but conventional medicine (or drugs companies) makes sure that a level playing field is never really reached - and the goal posts keep changing.

Alternative practitioners do not have access to expensive labs, and multi-million pound research facilities to produce the evidence they ask for - hence it becomes "unproven" . Anecdotal evidence is all what most alternative practitioners have to give as evidence - and whether it be hundreds or thousands of satisfied patients and satisfactory outcomes - it is dismissed - hence Its like trying to fight with one hand tied behind your back.  They also have to put up with the small studies they have taken part in being sabotaged by using the wrong criteria/dosages.  Then of course the statistics are manipulated the wrong way.  One example was the so-called "study" to find out if B17 worked.  

In the sixties, the American public started to become more interested in a substance called Laetrile (B17). So the Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital of New York - a "leading authority" on cancer (and completely funded by the drugs companies) - thought they’d settle the debate once and for all by appointing the world’s most accredited cancer doctor- Kanematsu Sugiura- to investigate this "quackery" and dismiss it….or so they hoped.

His final report was a huge embarrassment to the hospital. His extensive five year study concluded that:

Laetrile inhibited the growth of tumours.

Laetrile stopped the spreading of cancer in mice.

It relieved pain.

It prevented cancer forming.

It improved overall health.

Several other eminent doctors verified this research. The hospital management insisted that the whole experiment had been bungled. Many doctors rebelled and/or resigned. Any further research into Laetrile has been banned.

The eminent expert Dr. Sugiura stuck to his word. Then, this whole episode just stayed swept under the carpet and is still the case to this day. Why don’t the government and media do something? You tell me. I have read of alternative practitioners being raided, ("Alive and Well" Dr Phillip Binzel)  their files confiscated, and being hauled before the courts - just because they had the temerity to treat cancer patients with B17.  WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF? Its no wonder that there is the mistrust and aggression between alternative paractitioners and conventional medicine.  

The crazy thing is - aren't we both supposed to be on the same side?  Don't we all want what's best for the patient - no matter what?  if someone came to me as a nutritional therapist and I wasn't able to help them I would direct them to their doctor - or someone who I thought would help them better than I could. In any case I would certaintly advise them to keep their doctor informed of any diet treatment.  However, the average GP would either dismiss the alternative approach out of hand (I have personal experience of this) or would not even tell them where they could get different help than what he or she was proposing - even if they were helped by it.  There lies the difference.

I would love to see conventional medicine and naturopathy work side by side for the benefit of the patient.  But facing the currentr reality - the scientific criteria that is demanded for alternative medicine is usually scuppered before it begins.  

You could have more of a debate if your words weren't cut off!

I use allopath a lot so people can see what is going on.  The only reason alternative

medicine 'doesn't work' is because it is non-allopathic med, and allopaths say it does't.

"The crazy thing is - aren't we both supposed to be on the same side?"

Yes, but you haven't factored in a few things such as the true reality.  The world is

run by psychopaths, and they run allopathy which has a monopol which is how

psychopaths like things.  They have no heart so they try to fill the hole with

money.

You can't appease or talk sense to a psychopath/No Sympathy type, for one

thing appeasement is just where he wants you http://www.whale.to/v/tone.html

"I would love to see conventional medicine and naturopathy work side by side for the benefit of the patient."

Conventional medicine, aka Allopathy can't work beside non-Allopathic medicine,

as it is run by psychopaths who have absolutely no intention of giving 1 inch.

No matter how many well meaning allopaths are in the system. If anyone wants to

give you chemo or radiation he hasn't done much research has he?

Even the cats can get laetrile:

"You get cats in with high fevers, 105-108 degrees.  There is nothing you can give

them that will bring down that high a fever--except laetrile."---Dr Kearns, DVM. (Dr

Kearns uses 50mg of laetrile orally until the leukemia is under control.)

http://www.whale.to/cancer/laetrile.html

Do you think you can work alongside these psychopaths:

According to Richard Walters, Dr. James Cason of the University of California,

Berkeley, analyzed the compound used in the Mayo Clinic study using infrared

spectrophotometry and determined that it did not contain amygdalin at all.

I don't think so.

Regarding Aphasia's comment: "Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble. Oh and I see you are an AIDS denialist too, fantastic!", I would just like to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Whale.to is a shocking site, run by an angry, obsessive conspiracy theorist.

The 'evidence' on this crackpot website is flimsy and the conspiracy theories ludicrous.

@jdc: Don't feed the troll! :)

You can't beat Dr Mendelsohn for a good summary of the great 'scientific' medicine called allopathy.  You can see why they like to accuse alt med of irrationality and snake oil, it distracts, doesn't it.

"Despite the tendency of doctors to call modern medicine an 'inexact science', it is more accurate to say there is practically no science in modern medicine at all. Almost everything doctors do is based on a conjecture, a guess, a clinical impression, a whim, a hope, a wish, an opinion or a belief. In short, everything they do is based on anything but solid scientific evidence. Thus, medicine is not a science at all, but a belief system. Beliefs are held by every religion, including the Religion of Modern Medicine." -----Robert Mendelsohn MD Preface by Hans Ruesch to 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection  http://www.whale.to/v/mendelsohn.html

"I no longer believe in Modern Medicine. I believe that despite all the super technology and elite bedside manner….the greatest danger to your health is the doctor who practices Modern Medicine. I believe that Modern Medicine’s treatments for disease are seldom effective, and that they’re often more dangerous than the disease they’re designed to treat. I believe more than 90% of Modern Medicine could disappear from the face of the earth---doctors, hospitals, drugs and equipment---and the effect on our health would be immediate & beneficial……Modern Medicine can’t survive without our faith, because Modern Medicine is neither an art nor a science. It’s a religion."---Dr Robert Mendelsohn MD

Whale: "Allopathy ... filters out the emotionally intelligent, ie the ones with heart ... Generally speaking, and the heartless ones run the show".

Unlike nice guys like Walter Hadwen. Check out this talk where he and his fans all have a good laugh about a child's autopsy.  A little bit lacking in heart, maybe? - http://www.whale.to/vaccines/hadwen.html

Was that the one where they tried to silence him with a manslaughter charge?

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/hadwen.html

Hadwen was a true hero for children, trying to stop the needless slaughter of

babies that was running at 25,000!! at the height of vaccination 1880

http://www.whale.to/a/deathssmallpox.html

Ah, the manslaughter trial. If you read more widely than the selective scrapbook at whale.to, you'll find he got lucky. Firstly, he could afford the top lawyer Sir Edward Marshall-Hall as his defence barrister (which is very unusual for a provincial doctor, and suggests he was getting external funding). Secondly, a request to the High Court of Justice to take the case to the Central Criminal Court inexplicably failed, despite strong evidence that it wouldn't be possible to find an unbiased jury in his home town of Gloucester (where he was a popular local character and magistrate). So he was tried in Gloucester and, unsurprisingly, rapidly acquitted.

To Susan Insole - thank you for your kind words. It's always good to talk to someone in the same boat and understands my point of view. My own brother has said that I will die without treatment. This negativity is sometimes unbearable. Good luck to you too. You and I have proved that one can at least extend your life with natural treatments (and my belief is that conventional medicine only shortens the life). However, I don't intend to settle for that, I intend to cure myself. And I am so happy, that I found out the truth about medicine in time. My best wishes to you Susan :-)

Considering all the resources, and claims of modern medicine today, shouldn't we be seeing a decline in illnesses? In fact the opposite is true, we  have more sickness and disease than at any time in history, new diseases unheard of before and drug related diseases have reached epidemic proportions. Modern medicine is designed to mask/alleviate symptoms only. Apart from anti-biotics, discovered by accident, there isn't a single drug that actually cures; strange considering all the resources at the disposal of medical researchers.  Longevity of over 60s may have something to do with the fact they were born before the chemical/pharma/junk food revolution  so began life with a strong healthy immune system - the foundation of health. Today children are exposed to increasing toxins  from birth in the air, food, water and drugs which weaken their immune systems leaving them more suceptible to diseases, so  will be lucky to reach middle age, let alone old age.  Harradine suggests modern medicine has been 'proved' to work, so why so many deaths, injuries and other diseases caused by modern 'scientifically tested' drugs?  Every day on the net I read of another drug that has caused death or injury to countless people. If an alternative profession had such a tragic record they would be banned from practising. Problem is medicine today is motivated by profit, and revenue from drugs is vital to the economy, hence goverments support for this industry.  History shows that many alternative treatments have been proved successful, but are condemned to safeguard the pharmaceutical industry that is generating billions of pounds and employs thousands of people. The economy would be in dire straits if cheap alternative thearpies were adopted.

Hi Gemma,

First of all let me point out that I have never said that modern medicine has been "proved to work", as you say.  What I have said is that modern medicine should incorporate treatments that have sufficent evidence to suggest that they are effective and that they are safe.  I am not even suggesting that this is always the case- I am pledging a committment that it should always be so.  

Also, I'm afriad your facts are just wrong.  When you say "we shold be seeing a decline in illness" and suggest that we are not, that illness i actually greater now that before, what perdiod of history and you comparing this with?  In the developed world at least, life expectancy has never been so long and child mortality has never been so low.  What makes you think that we suffer from illnesses like never before?  History certainly teaches us the exact opposite.  Many diseases that were very common and untreatable are simply never seen in this parts of the world any more.   I am not suggesting this is due to drug treatments alone, vacciniation improved sanitation and diet as well as antibiotics explain most of this effect.  All evidence based interventions!

You take about all the "deaths, injuries and other diseases" that are caused by "scientifically tested drugs" but simulataneously and conveniently disregard all the benefit that is dervied from modern medical treatments, including but not limited to drugs.  Of course no one should ever take a medicine unless they need it!  They are used to treat illness, not for people who would simply like to feel a little bit better!  Everyday you read on the net another story about how a drug has caused harm, but the stories of people whose lives have been turned around and extended or made tolerable by modern medicine rarely make the headlines.

There have indeed been cases when alternative therapies provided evidence that they worked.  Aspirin, opiates, treatments from snake venom, foxgloves, etc.  All these treatments work and hence are no longer known as "alternative", they are simply now called "medicine".  On argument used often is that pharmaceutical companies supress natural remedies since they cannot exploit them.  This simply isn't the case.  Beleive me, drug companies are interested in one thing only- does it work.  if it works, they can sell it.  They do not even need to have a patent on it, there are hundreds of generic drug manufacturers who products vast quantities of medicine without a single patent in their portfolio.

All this distracts from a very simple point, if someone is genuinely gravely ill, what's the best thing to do?  Try our best to use what treatments we have available to help them, whatever they may be from whatever source provided we have some evidence that they work and wont do more harm than good?  Or refuse them these treatments and advise them to use homeopathy to make a point?