Re: Homeopathy
- From: "Dr Steve" <nospam@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:56:27 GMT
Dear Zachary Smith,
"Dr. Jochen Kulow" <jochenkulowNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>I see some deficite in knowledge about Homepathy:
Then why use it??????????????
> Some abstracts to that:
>
>
> Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?
>
> Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC,
> Carter R, Stevenson RD.
>
> University Department of Medicine, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, UK.
Published when and in what journal??????????
Qualifications of the investigators are????????
Study was funded by???????????
> We tested, under independent conditions, the reproducibility of evidence
> from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. The test
> model was again homoeopathic immunotherapy. 28 patients with allergic
> asthma, most of them sensitive to house-dust mite, were randomly allocated
> to receive either oral homoeopathic immunotherapy to their principal
> allergen or identical placebo. The test treatments were given as a
> complement to their unaltered conventional care. A daily visual analogue
> scale of overall symptom intensity was the outcome measure. A difference
> in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy appeared
> within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (p =
> 0.003). There were similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial
> reactivity tests. A meta-analysis of all three trials strengthened the
> evidence that homoeopathy does more than placebo (p = 0.0004). Is the
> reproducibility of evidence in favour of homoeopathy proof of its activity
> or proof of the clinical trial's capacity to produce false-positive
> results?
How was the study standardized?? and has anyone been able to repeat the same
results???????????
> Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis using homeopathic preparation of
> common allergens in the southwest region of the US: a randomized,
> controlled clinical trial.
>
> Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters
> RF.
>
> Southwest College Research Institute, Southwest College of Naturopathic
> Medicine & Health Sciences, Tempe, AZ 85282-1751, USA. l.kim@xxxxxxxx
>
> BACKGROUND: Studies using homeopathy have reported beneficial effects from
> treating allergy-related conditions. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects
> of a homeopathic drug prepared from common allergens (tree, grass, weed
> species) specific to the Southwest region of the US. METHODS: A 4-week,
> double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic preparations with
> placebo was conducted in the Phoenix metropolitan area during the regional
> allergy season from February to May. Participants included 40 men and
> women, 26-63 years of age, diagnosed with moderate to severe seasonal
> allergic rhinitis symptoms. Study outcomes included allergy-specific
> symptoms using the rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaire
> (RQLQ), functional quality of life using the Medical Outcomes Study Short
> Form-36 (MOS SF-36), and the work productivity and activity impairment
> (WPAI) questionnaire. RESULTS: Scales from the RQLQ, MOS SF-36, and WPAI
> questionnaire showed significant positive changes from baseline to 4 weeks
> in the homeopathic group compared with the placebo group (p < 0.05).
> Subjects reported no adverse effects during the intervention period.
> CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings indicate potential benefits of the
> homeopathic intervention in reducing symptoms and improving quality of
> life in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis in the Southwestern US.
I hope you realize that allergy is not a good comparison for homeopathic
drugs, since conventional medicine will desensitize the immune response with
low doses of the allergan. You need to choose a better model.
> Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with
> individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo.
>
> Bell IR, Lewis DA 2nd, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, Baldwin
> CM.
>
> Department of Psychiatry, Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public
> Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, USA. IBELL@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of individualized classical homeopathy
> in the treatment of fibromyalgia. METHODS: This study was a double-blind,
> randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial of homeopathy.
> Community-recruited persons (N = 62) with physician-confirmed fibromyalgia
> (mean age 49 yr, s.d. 10 yr, 94% women) were treated in a homeopathic
> private practice setting. Participants were randomized to receive oral
> daily liquid LM (1/50,000) potencies with an individually chosen
> homeopathic remedy or an indistinguishable placebo. Homeopathic visits
> involved joint interviews and concurrence on remedy selection by two
> experienced homeopaths, at baseline, 2 months and 4 months (prior to a
> subsequent optional crossover phase of the study which is reported
> elsewhere). Tender point count and tender point pain on examination by a
> medical assessor uninvolved in providing care, self-rating scales on
> fibromyalgia-related quality of life, pain, mood and global health at
> baseline and 3 months, were the primary clinical outcome measures for this
> report. RESULTS: Fifty-three people completed the treatment protocol.
> Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements
> in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global
> health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo.
> CONCLUSIONS: This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month
> placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for
> only one homeopathic remedy. Using a broad selection of remedies and the
> flexible LM dose (1/50,000 dilution factor) series, the present study
> demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than
> placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life
> and global health of persons with fibromyalgia.
All the same questions about the studya s above, plus none of the criteria
used to evaluate the efficacy are standard tests which can be repeated by
any other tester.
> Effect of Arnica D30 in marathon runners. Pooled results from two
> double-blind placebo controlled studies.
>
> Tveiten D, Bruset S.
>
> Baerumsveien 451, 1346 Gjettum, Norway. datveite@xxxxxxxxx
>
> OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the homeopathic medicine Arnica D30 has an
> effect on muscle soreness and cell damage after marathon running. METHODS:
> The subjects were 82 marathon runners from two separate randomised
> double-blind placebo controlled trials participating in the Oslo Marathon
> in 1990 and 1995. Five pills of Arnica D30 or placebo were given morning
> and evening. Treatment started on the evening before the marathon and
> continued on day of the race and the three following days. The runners
> assessed muscular soreness on a visual analogue scale. Muscle enzymes,
> electrolytes and creatinine were measured before and after the marathon.
> RESULTS: Muscle soreness immediately after the marathon run was lower in
> the Arnica group than in the placebo group (P = 0.04). Cell damage
> measured by enzymes was similar in the Arnica and the placebo group.
> CONCLUSION: These pooled results suggest that Arnica D30 has a positive
> effect on muscle soreness after marathon running, but not on cell damage
> measured by enzymes.
The runners simply stated whether or not they "felt better"???
> Forsch Komplementarmed. 1998;5 Suppl S1:52-59. Related Articles, Links
> Click here to read
> Theorie und Erfahrung in der Medizin: Orthodoxe Wissenschaft und
> ganzheitliche Kybernetik.
>
> Zycha H.
>
> Theory and Practice in Medicine: Orthodox Science and Comprehensive
> Cybernetics The problems of today's health care system require a radical
> change of view. With its orientation towards the modern
> materialistic-reductionistic natural science, the focus of university
> research moved from a subjective ascertainable healing towards
> pathogenesis, which is objectively measurable by physical and chemical
> methods. Natural science research is especially interested in the distinct
> pathological changes expressed by the various diseases and their causes,
> but not in the constantly similar normal condition of a healed person.
> This led to the idea that the reversal of the investigated causal chain
> equals healing; healing and disease are considered as opposites. This way
> of thinking led to growing problems, which result from the dubious nature
> of a causal principle, that is transferred from everyday thinking into the
> micro world. Each of those causal chains represents an artificial
> linearization of complex natural interrelations and, additionally, can
> never be followed up to its ends. This infinite regress of reductionistic
> thinking can only artificially be stopped by unlikely hypotheses, which
> are responsible for missing healing success and the manifold side effects
> of modern therapies - for the discrepancy between theory and experience.
> With an holistic-spiritual view of nature today cybernetics shows us a new
> route. Cybernetics leads to a lergely hypothesis-free insight into life's
> processes and to a scientifically sound definition of disease: Disease and
> healing should not be considered as opposite, as healing is already laid
> down in the pathogenesis! Cybernetics will especially lead to the
> long-awaited scientific proof of homoeopathy and, apart from this, will
> prove that the healing principle of homoeopathy is the general natural
> principle of all successful therapies in the whole field of medicine.
What did you try to say with this abstract??????
.
- References:
- Homeopathy
- From: Dr. Jochen Kulow
- Homeopathy
- Prev by Date: Re: Cordless bonding lights?
- Next by Date: Hg-excretion dependend on Body size
- Previous by thread: Homeopathy
- Next by thread: Re: Homeopathy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
