Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘homeopathy’

by Dana Ullman, NaturalNews

The government of Switzerland has a long history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. Further, when one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.

In late 2011, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a governmentand was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.

The Swiss government’s inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country’s health insurance program.

It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government’s health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland’s national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government’s constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

The Swiss Government’s “Health Technology Assessment”

The Swiss government’s “Health Technology Assessment” on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. This report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, plus they also evaluated the “real world effectiveness” as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).

And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called “internal validity”) and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called “external validity”). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients).

When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not “work,” the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy… or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).

After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhoft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of upper respiratory tract infections and respiratory allergies. The report cited 29 studies in “Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions,” of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.

The authors of the Swiss government’s report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 “high quality” homeopathic studies but only nine “high quality” conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Ludtke, Rutten, 2008).

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in “evidence based medicine,” has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were “unscientific” or “unproven” because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.

For a treatment to be determined to be “effective” or “scientifically proven,” a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn’t is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.

The next article will discuss further evidence provided in this report from the Swiss government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care.

REFERENCES:

Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011.http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1(This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this book.)

Bornhoft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementarmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077

Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. SwissInfo.ch, May 19, 2009.http://www.swissinfo.ch

Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6.http://download.thelancet.com

Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract

Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementarmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevolkerungstimmt uber Verfassungsartikel ?Zukunft mit Komplementarmedizin? ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073.
(Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Article “The future with complementary medicine”
http://www.ayurveda-association.eu

*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.

About the author:
America’s leading advocate for homeopathic medicine and author ofThe Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy(Foreword by Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Learn more about homeopathy and Dana’s work athttp://www.Homeopathic.comor watch Dana’s videos athttp://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?memberid=6958

Dana has authored 9 other books, includingHomeopathy A-Z,Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants,Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling)Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD).

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035499_homeopathic_medicine_Swiss_report.html#ixzz1rrOkOhV2

by Dana Ullman, Huffington Post

The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.

In late 2011, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.

The Swiss government’s inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country’s health insurance program.

It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government’s health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland’s national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government’s constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

Read the rest at this link.

A survey conducted by the Hartman Group on behalf of Boiron, a homeopathic medicine manufacturer, has found that 82% of women shoppers ages 25-70 avoid over the counter (OTC) drugs for headaches and influenza (and similar problems) as often as possible.  These women believe that these OTC drugs are not good for them and instead look for natural, alternative options.

The survey was done online and included 1,400 women in the U.S.  The participants also believe that the purity and healthfulness of medicines is very important (42%) and 31% said they pay close attention to chemical and irritation-causing content when choosing OTC medications.

Most had not, however, used a recognized homeopathic remedy (only 15%) and about the same number (14%) had given homeopathic remedies to their children in the past year.  Most responded that they did not know enough about homeopathy to consider it.

Critics will point out that the survey was conducted by a homeopathic medicine maker, so it’s “biased.”  Well, the majority of surveys done for OTC and mainstream medicine are the same way, usually paid for by a pharmaceutical or drug maker.

Related articles

• Exclusive: Fibromyalgia and Homeopathy – Perfectly Complementary (hiddenhealthscience.com)

Fibromyalgia is a chronic syndrome affecting millions of people world wide.  We have little understanding of this disease, almost no idea what could be its root cause, and only a hit-and-miss record in treating it successfully (no matter the chosen treatments).

The problem with fibromyalgia is that, as far has been learned, it is not a disease but a grouping of symptoms (a syndrome).  So it cannot be tested for using blood, x-ray, or any other type of modern technology.  It’s a problem that can only be diagnosed through thoughtful, clinical, physician-to-patient interaction and detective work.  It is thus an ailment that does not generally do well in modern medical practice, but is almost perfectly suited for homeopathic treatment.

What Is Fibromyalgia?
Fibromyalgia is a combination of symptoms, which may (or may not) include: myalgias (muscle pain, often called “tender points”), stiffness, fatigue, migraine headaches, dizziness, paraethesias, irritable bowel syndrome-like problems, sleep disorders, anxiety/depression (often fluctuating), memory and concentration problems, and so forth.

Some sufferers have only a few of these symptoms, some have nearly all of them.  Many are mis-diagnosed with other problems first, before being given a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.  It is most often diagnosed in women aged 20-50, but has been found in men and even teenagers.

Some study into the syndrome has suggested a genetic link, as family members often share symptoms, but so far no proof of any source for fibromyalgia has been discovered.

Conventional Treatments
The conventional treatment for fibromyalgia is to prescribe treatments and pharmaceuticals for each individual symptom, in order of severity.  A recent study’s title, as published in Nature Reviews Rheumatology, says it all: Fibromyalgia Drugs are ‘As Good as it Gets’ in Chronic Pain.

The trouble with the way most clinical trials are conducted in order to test the efficacy of specific drug treatments is that they are usually exclusive.  Since fibromyalgia is series of symptoms rather than a singular disease or ailment, one treatment or drug is not likely to alleviate the ailment.  Yet most clinical trials of pharmaceuticals or mainstream treatments focus on only one thing at a time, excluding all others.

This despite the fact that most patients with this syndrome are usually prescribed multiple drugs and treatments.  This gives the obvious advantage to the homeopathic approach for treatment of fibromyalgia.

Homeopathy and Fibromyalgia
The practice of homeopathy has two main focuses: doctor-patient interaction and customized treatment for the patient based on that interaction.  A homeopath does not spend five minutes with the patient and then hand them a scrip for a “cure.”  Like fibromyalgia, homeopathic medicine is individual to the patient.

Most homeopathic medications are prescribed because, in large doses, they would actually cause the same symptom being treated.  The idea being that if the patient has a specific symptom, the body’s own defense systems will counter the root cause of the symptom, so exacerbating the symptom just enough to increase the body’s response will cure the underlying illness.

With fibromyalgia, which is basically a list of symptoms, homeopathy treats each symptom individually rather than the idea of “fibromyalgia” as a whole.  This contradicts the general mainstream approach, which labels the problem and looks for a one-stop cure-all for it.

Science Proves Homeopathy’s Treatment of Fibromyalgia
Much study has gone into the treatment of fibromyalgia.  A study done in 2003 as a crossover study* and published in the journal Rheumatology (Oxford Journals), showed that even patients receiving only one homeopathic remedy were significantly better off than those receiving a placebo.

Another study, published in the Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine in 2004, showed that not only were patients receiving homeopathic treatment (over a placebo) better off, but that individualizing the dosage meant even better responses.  This study was a culmination of four studies that were published in the journal Rheumatology.

A search of Google Scholar shows many, many more studies (most of them in Britain) on the efficacy of homeopathic treatments in fibromyalgia.  Yet homeopathy is continuing to receive little but vitriol from mainstream academics and medicine.

A study published in 2000 by the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine shows that most “scientific” response to homeopathic studies is hardly scientific at all.  It’s usually based on name-calling and cries of “bias”  against the researchers (despite the fact that most mainstream scientific research is easily biased as well).

There is much evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicine in treating fibromyalgia’s symptoms and little to refute it.  The syndrome and the treatment are perfectly complementary.

For More Information..
*A “crossover study” is a clinical trial method in which one treatment is compared to another in a way similar to a double-blind, placebo study, but where patients are switched halfway through in order to make comparisons.

..on homeopathy and how it works, read this excellent exchange of letters published in the British Medical Journal in 1994.

..on the use of alternative medicine for fibromyalgia, see this article in Arthritis & Rheumatism, 1996.