http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org

Your freedom to choose homeopathy is seriously at risk

Homeopathy is recognised as a safe, inexpensive and effective form of treatment against illness, and it is used by literally millions of people worldwide.  Yet in the UK -and other countries- steps are being taken to reduce your access to this therapeutic tool.  A handful of people are waging a fierce campaign against the profession - and it is gaining momentum.  Unless people stand up for their right to choose, homeopathy could be seriously marginalised.

This is where you can sign the declaration to Parliament, and state that "Homeopathy worked for me".

This is an online declaration.  Whatever your age, if you have ever taken a homeopathic remedy, and it has helped you and you want to support the campaign to maintain choice and promote homeopathy, here's what you can do:

If you are a UK resident, you can add your name to the declaration online: click here.
or at http://www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx?C3E78B91C3859F98

If you live elsewhere in the world, you can add your name to our international supporting
declaration online: click here. 
or at http://www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx?8AAEC2D889CBDCDE

Two new studies conclude that a review which claimed that homeopathy is just a placebo, published in The Lancet, was seriously flawed.  

George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University comments: 'The review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable.'

The background to the ongoing debate is as follows:
In August 2005, The Lancet published an editorial entitled 'The End of Homeopathy', prompted by a review comparing clinical trials of homeopathy with trials of conventional medicine.  The claim that homeopathic medicines are just placebo was based on 6 clinical trials of conventional medicine and 8 studies of homeopathy but did not reveal the identity of these trials.  The review was criticised for its opacity as it gave no indication of which trials were analysed and the various assumptions made about the data.  

Sufficient detail to enable a reconstruction was eventually published and two recently published scientific papers based on such a reconstruction challenge the Lancet review, showing that:
 
Analysis of all high quality trials of homeopathy yields a positive conclusion.  
 
The 8 larger higher quality trials of homeopathy were all for different conditions; if homeopathy works for some of these but not others the result changes, implying that it is not placebo.
 
The comparison with conventional medicine was meaningless.  
 
Doubts remain about the opaque, unpublished criteria used in the review, including the definition of 'higher quality'.

The Lancet review, led by Prof Matthias Egger of the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Berne, started with 110 matched clinical trials of homeopathy and conventional medicine, reduced these to 'higher quality trials' and then to 8 and 6 respectively 'larger higher quality trials'.  Based on these 14 studies the review concluded that there is 'weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions'.

There are a limited number of homeopathic studies so it is quite possible to interpret these data selectively and unfavourably, which is what appears to have been done in the Lancet paper.  If we assume that homeopathy does not work for just one condition (Arnica for post-exercise muscle stiffness), or alter the definition of 'larger trial', the results are positive.  The comparison with conventional medicine was meaningless: the original 110 trials were matched, but matching was lost after they were reduced to 8 and 6.  But  the quality of homeopathic trials was better than conventional trials.
This reconstruction casts serious doubts on the review, showing that it was based on a series of hidden judgments unfavourable to homeopathy.  An open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for a number of conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and 'flu, but more research is desperately needed.

Prof Egger has declined to comment on these findings.

References
Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2008.  doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.015
Rutten ALB, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy 2008.  doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.008.

A trial of homeopathic remedies has found that they appear to work against some allergies - but experts can not work out why. Homeopathy has traditionally been pooh-poohed by most mainstream doctors, but a series of intriguing research results suggests they may have some positive effect in some conditions.

In the latest study, conducted by doctors at Glasgow University, patients with allergic "hayfever-like" symptoms were tested.

Half were given a homeopathic remedy, based on extracts from various allergy-causing substances.

These had been heavily diluted in water 30 times - meaning, on mathematical probability, there was virtually no chance that even a single molecule of the allergens remained in the liquid.
The other half were given simply a placebo - although, because of the dilution, the chemical formula of the two liquids appeared to be identical.

However, the patients given the homeopathy experienced a significant improvement in their nasal symptoms - their noses were far clearer.

On average, the homeopathy patients were 22% better, the placebo group 2.5% better.

Better than steriods
The results with the homepathy are roughly similar to those a doctor might expect to achieve with a steroid nasal spray.

However, homeopathy appears to have no side-effects whatsoever.

Interestingly, more patients in the homeopathy group found their symptoms got worse when they initially started treatment.

Dr Peter Fisher, clinical director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, said: "It's getting very difficult to argue that homeopathy has no effect.

"There are now quite a few studies which have suggested this. There is no doubt that there has been a lot of progress.

"We think that large studies now need to be done, but it is hard to attract funding because few people take it seriously."

Although he concedes that there is little evidence to back any theories of how homeopathy works, he said that medicine had often benefited from effects that were significant, but could not be fully explained.

Normal medical thinking needs medicines to have a detectable active ingredient causing an effect in the body.

However, the huge dilution of homepathic remedies means that the possibility of a molecule of any sort forming this ingredient is virtually impossible.

Homeopaths theorise that the earlier presence of the molecules - prior to dilution, somehow change the physical properties of the liquid. This, however, has not been proven.

http://www.homeopathyzone.com/blog/article/the-homeopathic-treatment-of-allergies/

Homeopathy is highly effective in the treatment of allergies and fully capable of stimulating the organism to heal to the point of complete relief from all allergy symptoms.

Many of us have suffered from allergies at one time in our life, and usually the best treatment offered was symptomatic relief through avoidance of the allergen or through medication. Homeopathy, on the other hand, addresses the cause of the sensitivity to allergens at the deepest possible level; avoiding the allergen (the substance responsible for the allergic response) or resorting to suppression of symptoms through ongoing symptomatic treatment becomes unnecessary once this sensitivity has been eliminated.

In this article I begin with (1) a short overview of allergies, followed by (2) discussion of the conventional approach, (3)  the homeopathic diagnostic approach and (4) the rationale behind the homeopathic approach to the treatment of allergies.

1. The many types of allergy
There are many common substances to which people may develop an allergic response, including:
Symptoms of allergy manifest at the interface between the external world and internal environment: on the skin and in mucus membranes of the respiratory tract, the digestive tract, and the eyes. The inflammation that results causes the various allergy symptoms that many of us are familiar with from personal experience or through someone we know.

It should be noted that some of the above substances may cause trouble to many otherwise healthy people. If this is the case and the substance is synthetic or strongly modified from its natural form (medications, commerical wheat, genetically modified soy, etc.) then it may indeed be the substance rather than personal sensitivity that should be viewed as the true cause, and avoidance may well be the most appropriate solution in such cases.

Indeed, there are many substances encountered in modern life to which we are not physiologically adapted. These are a frequent cause of intolerance symptoms such as mental fogginess, tiredness, poor digestion, skin rashes, and diarrhea. Intolerance should be distinguished from allergy by its lesser specificity and intensity of symptoms, and the term may also refer to certain hereditary conditions in which the body is unable to handle specific food components or environmental conditions for reasons that have nothing to do with the immune system. From the therapeutic point of view intolerance (except of the hereditary type) is approached similarly to allergy, although frequently with more emphasis on avoidance.

In addition, some forms of asthma are allergic in nature, seasonal allergies are frequently referred to as hay fever, and a skin allergy usually manifests itself as hives.

Whatever the exact terminology applied, the goal of homeopathic allergy treatment is the strengthening of the organism at its spiritual core, leading to increased resilience of the organism. A resilient person is able to withstand a wide variety of environments by responding appropriately to each situation without suffering chronic ill effects.

2. The conventional approach to allergy
The conventional approach to allergy incorporates the strategy of environmental control, whereby the patient avoids exposure to the allergen as much as possible. In contrast, from the homeopathic perspective the identity of the allergen is not nearly as important as each individual's specific pattern of response to it, both at the physical and at the psychological level.

The former approach is effective in principle but has two limitations. First, avoiding the allergen completely may be difficult in highly sensitive individuals for whom even trace amounts of allergen produce a full-blown, or even life-threatening, allergic response.

Second, the avoidance approach doesn't address the true cause of the allergy, which is not the allergen but the person's sensitivity to it. Avoidance can eliminate symptoms but it doesn't amount to true healing, at least not by the stringent homeopathic standards: health is freedom in facing external challenges with few limitations, whereas avoidance restricts the individual's freedom.

There are two classes of medication generally in use for the symptomatic control of allergies: antihistamines and corticosteroids. Of these, corticosteroids are the more disruptive because they paralyze the immune system at its root, whereas antihistamines interrupt the allergic response without fundamentally altering immune function.

A second-line approach to more severe allergies is immunotherapy ('allergy shots'), which involves regular injections of small amounts of the relevant allergen(s) over a long period (several months to several years); this leads to a gradual desensitization of the body to them. This approach happens to be based on a simplified version of the homeopathic principle called isopathy, and because of this it does not disrupt homeopathic treatment (beyond making it difficult to determine which of the two treatments should be credited with the improvement). This approach is suitable for many, but falls short of the more global therapeutic improvement attainable through the homeopathic approach.

3. The homeopathic diagnostic approach
The homeopathic treatment of allergies begins with the physical symptoms but doesn't end there. Important clues to the homeopathic pattern and prescription can be found in:

• life circumstances around the time of onset of the allergy symptoms;
• situations which cause an exacerbation of the allergy symptoms;
• situations which lead to a relief from allergy symptoms;
• feelings aroused by the allergy symptoms, or the person's unique experience of the condition;
• how the allergy symptoms disrupt normal living, or what the person is thereby prevented from doing.

Again, it is important to understand that the specific allergy symptoms are not in themselves a disease but merely represent the underlying spiritual imbalance that is the root of all disease. Whether a person will develop allergies, skin problems, joint problems, or organ problems is largely dependent on hereditary factors as well as on the degree of suppression of symptoms from past medical treatment.

In the case of severe allergies and asthma it is important never to reduce or discontinue the use of medications until the allergic tendency has clearly and permanently been eliminated, and even then always in consultation with the treating physician. Likewise it is important to maintain access to emergency facilities in case of a dangerous exacerbation throughout treatment, and to continue carrying antihistamines, inhalers, an EpiPen adrenaline injector, etc. whenever away from home for use in case of a severe reaction.

4. The rationale behind the homeopathic approach to allergies
What is the advantage of comprehensive allergy treatment with homeopathy over other natural approaches?

On the one hand clean diets such as the raw food diet I discussed recently have many beneficial effects. For example, many people do better without wheat: they typically feel more clear-headed than otherwise, among other subtle benefits. So even people who do not complain of any symptoms indicative of allergy or intolerance might do well to avoid certain foods, and likewise to breath fresher air, drink cleaner water, and so on.

But eliminating the allergen should only be seen as the first step of a comprehensive treatment strategy that addresses also the person's allergic sensitivity. This can be achieved through treatment which strengthens the overall functioning of the organism and repairs the immune system.

If dietary measures are used, they should go beyond avoidance of specific foods, aiming to heal the gut and address the excessive intestinal permeability (also known as leaky gut syndrome) that frequently underlies food-based allergies.

True healing, however, is largely independent of dietary considerations: the healthy person should not only feel extra-healthy on a perfect diet, but also remain symptom-free when consuming a somewhat imperfect diet. To begin, it helps that healthy individuals are naturally attracted to healthy foods. But living in our society involves the occasional birthday or cocktail party or movie outing, and we should not be punished for sporadic indulgence. Yet many people who base their health maintenance on dietary measures alone remain sensitive to deviations from a strict diet, and some even become more rather than less sensitive - and therefore more restricted - over time.

When a person can feel well only on a customized, restrictive diet this indicates an imbalance at a deeper level. This imbalance is addressable partly through lifestyle measures such as exercise and meditation; but, again, one's health shouldn't be highly dependent on a strict regimen of daily exercise and meditation.

The way I see it, the ultimate goal in the healing of allergic symptoms involves eliminating sensitivity while increasing freedom. This is achievable through constitutional treatment  primarily through comprehensive systems such as Chinese medicine and homeopathy.
Constitutional treatment is the long-term strengthening of the spiritual core of the organism. (See my article on length of homeopathic treatment for information on how long this might take.) Clinically it is known that such treatment tends to increase the natural resilience of the organism to environmental stressors.

We are all familiar with the image of a spiritually strong person as a Zen master who remains unperturbed when faced with interpersonal conflict or life circumstances that would overwhelm a normal being. With respect to allergies, the spiritually healthy person will prefer a allergen-free environment, but will remain healthy even when exposed to unhealthy environmental influences.