The confusion around homeopathy in the United States exists for several reasons

The confusion around homeopathy in the United States exists for several reasons

Abstract

Especially in the United States, homeopathy has not become integrated into mainstream medical practice; this is partly because of the historical paucity of quality published research studies or quality educational programs. More recently, there have been better-designed studies in reputable journals, although historically most studies have been inconclusive or of poor methodology. The confusion around homeopathy in the United States exists for several reasons: 1. One of the main reasons for the relative disinterest or opposition to homeopathy is that even well-designed clinical studies on homeopathy leave the reader without any protocol-driven tools to take into daily practice. Individualization of treatment, or, as it is called today, differential therapeutics, is the main requirement of successful homeopathic prescribing. Only well-trained homeopathic practitioners are able to carry out such a task. In many articles that reported positive outcomes for homeopathy, numerous homeopathic remedies had been prescribed for the same diagnostic category. Critics suggest that the pooling of data from trials using different therapeutic agents to assess the overall success of homeopathic prescribing is incorrect. Research protocols that employ combination remedies, in which a medication contains several homeopathic remedies, fall into the same category. 2. Many of the positive and negative studies published are flawed with numerous methodologic problems. One of the most common problems is a lack of objective validated outcome measures. Another common problem is a small sample size. In most positive and negative meta-analyses published to date, research data are pulled together artificially based on either a diagnostic category or a particular remedy. Frequently the concentration of the remedy used and the conditions to which it has been applied are different. Ernst and Pittler published a letter with a critique of the methodology used in one of the meta-analyses of clinical trials of homeopathy. Most importantly, professional homeopaths and conventional scientists criticize the choice of remedy or the condition to which it was applied or both. The design and follow-up in migraine studies has been criticized extensively by one of the world’s leading homeopaths, Vithoulkas (personal communication, 1997). Most of the Arnica studies have been designed with either an inappropriate dosing regimen or an inappropriately chosen procedure. In most positive studies on homeopathy, the outcome measures were subjective and poorly quantifiable. 3. Few well-designed studies have been reproduced by independent research teams. This situation exists for two major reasons: lack of sufficient funding and lack of a sufficient number of well-trained homeopaths qualified and interested to participate in research. 4. More rigorous educational programs on homeopathy for professionals need to be encouraged. Most of the existing programs are designed for consumers; academic continuing medical education-quality courses are needed. Meanwhile, while the debate around homeopathy still continues in conventional medical circles, the general public has been using the services of homeopathic practitioners and homeopathic remedies increasingly. In many countries, homeopathy and other complementary modalities have been integrated successfully into a larger armamentarium for the modern physician. According to a study published in 1995 in the Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 69% of family practice physicians expressed interest in learning more about homeopathy. Increasing public and professional interest calls for attempts to study homeopathy in a more systematic way and to provide quality academic overview for medical practitioners. The growing number of complementary and alternative medicine centers affiliated with major teaching hospitals should provide a solid interface between evidence-based biologic medicine and many emerging complementary and alternative medicine modalities, including homeopathy.

A short history of the development of homeopathy in India

A short history of the development of homeopathy in India

A short history of the development of homeopathy in India

Abstract

Homeopathy was introduced in India the early 19th century. It flourished in Bengal at first, and then spread all over India. In the beginning, the system was extensively practised by amateurs in the civil and military services and others. Mahendra Lal Sircar was the first Indian who became a homeopathic physician. A number of allopathic doctors started homeopathic practice following Sircar’s lead. The ‘Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College’, the first homeopathic medical college was established in 1881. This institution took on a major role in popularising homeopathy in India. In 1973, the Government of India recognised homeopathy as one of the national systems of medicine and set up the Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH) to regulate its education and practice. Now, only qualified registered homeopaths can practice homeopathy in India. At present, in India, homeopathy is the third most popular method of medical treatment after allopathy and Ayurveda. There are over 200,000 registered homeopathic doctors currently, with approximately 12,000 more being added every year.

Homeopathy. 2010 Apr;99(2):130-6. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2009.10.001.
Influenza is Here

Influenza is Here

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Influenza is now increasing both nationally and locally within the San Francisco Bay Area. For the week ending 12/20/14, CDC reported that the proportion of lab specimens positive for influenza was 28%, well above the 10% level thought to indicate a significant influenza outbreak. Most of these isolates are influenza A (H3N2) which has “drifted” somewhat from the viral strain that was used to develop this year’s flu vaccine. This means that, even if you received a flu shot this season, you may be even more susceptible to infection than during prior years.  The A (H3N2) viral subtype that is being seen this year tends to be associated with more severe influenza seasons, a phenomenon that may be compounded by changes in the viruses called antigenic drift. Also, the proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness is now up to 5.5%, which is above the national baseline of 2.0%. Locally the proportion of lab specimens positive for influenza was, for the first time this season, 10% or greater for the week ending 12/27/14.

During the flu season It’s especially important to take good care of yourself and your family.  Get plenty of rest, stay well hydrated, eat healthy foods, manage your stress as you always should.  In addition, wash your hands regularly, especially after shaking hands, touching your face, coughing or sneezing.

Homeopathy is commonly used around the world to treat influenza. Particularly since there is very little one can do allopathicaly, besides Tylenol and staying hydrated, once someone is sick, it’s great to have an alternative. Homeopathic remedies can significantly help with the muscle aches, fevers, sore throats, headaches, and cough that people often experience with influenza. It can also markedly speed up the recovery time.

Homeopathy first became popular during the cholera epidemic in 1854 in London. It was an historically important epidemic ‐ it was the first time a disease outbreak was traced to a particular source – in this case a public water pump. The pump was closed & the epidemic ceased. All in all 10,738 people died. The British House of Commons requested a report regarding the various methods of treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, no homeopathic figures were included. The House of Lords requested an explanation, and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included in the report, it would “skew the results” so it was suppressed. Upon examination, the buried report revealed that in patients under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while for patients receiving homeopathic care the mortality was only 9%.