26 July 2010 By Ian Quinn (Pulse Today) The Government has strongly rejected demands by MPs for the funding of homeopathy on the NHS to be withdrawn, claiming it would fly in the face of patient choice and local decision-making. In its response to a report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which issued a damning verdict on the practice and called for GPs to be barred from referring patients under the NHS, the Department of Heath said it would not be stepping in - despite MPs' concerns over the lack of evidence and regulation of homeopathic treatments. MPs had called not only for doctors to be barred from referring patients to homeopathic hospitals or homeopaths, but for the MHRA to intervene and to apply the same standards of regulation as for medicines, which they said would remove any medical claim supporters of homeopathy had. But in its response today the DH said: 'It is not appropriate for the Department of Health to remove the right of PCTs to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis.' 'Capital investment decisions in the NHS are planned and decided at local level. The commissioning plans of local PCTs set out the type of services that need to be provided and therefore drive decisions about the nature of new facilities needed, or the need to maintain, update or replace existing facilities.' The committee had also called for an investigation into the cost of homeopathy to the NHS and for new research into the evidence-base for homeopathy, but this too was rejected. MPs had wanted regulators to 'remove any medical claim and any implied endorsement of efficacy by the MHRA' by ensuring the same evidence of efficacy used to assess conventional medicines was used, but the Government said this would potentially deal a fatal blow to the homeopathy market and limit consumer choice. 'Homeopathy has a long tradition in Europe and is a recognised and widely used system of medicine across the EU,' it said. 'The Government takes the view that consumers who choose to use homeopathic medicines should be fully informed about their purpose and assured that standards of quality and safety are maintained. If homeopathic medicines were not subject to any kind of regulatory control consumers would not have access to such information or assurances.' 'Conversely, if regulation was applied to homeopathic medicines as understood in the context of conventional pharmaceutical medicines, these products would have to be withdrawn from the market as medicines. This would constrain consumer choice and, more importantly, risk the introduction of unregulated, poor quality and potentially unsafe products on the market to satisfy consumer demand.' However the campaign group Sense About Science hit out at the Department of Health's ruling. 'The Government has ignored the Committee's detailed consideration of the licensing of homeopathic products as medicines,' it said in a statement. 'It has acknowledged that "there will be an assumption that if the NHS is offering homeopathic treatments then they will be efficacious" and that homeopathic products can be licensed with no requirement for evidence that they treat any condition at all. However, the Government has put forward a weak point about 'patient choice' instead of considering what to do about these problems. At a time when PCTs are reviewing expenditure on ineffective treatments, this is perverse.' 'We urge them to go back and give proper consideration to this part of the Committee's report. In the meantime, we recommend a warning on the label of homeopathic products telling people that the product is licensed without any evidence that it works.'Government defends right to homeopathy on the NHS
Protest at the BMA Conference 30 June 2010
The campaigners against homeopathy are attempting to get the BMA to pass a resolution against homeopathy. In particular there is a call for it to be removed from the NHS, which would almost certainly be a first step towards outlawing it altogether in the UK.
The Faculty will be making representations through its members at the British Medical Association conference in Brighton on June 29th.
The Faculty is also planing to stage a demonstration in Brighton on the morning of Wednesday 30 June 2010.
We need to make sure that this demonstration is as large as possible, to show that doctors are not acting on behalf of their patients, but in opposition to the views of many patients. 10% of people in the UK use homeopathy; their taxes pay for the NHS; it is right that the NHS reflects their choice of medical treatment.
For unelected doctors to attempt to restrict the right of patients to decide what medical treatment the NHS will provide is unacceptable.
Support the demonstration if you can
Let the Faculty know if you are coming, by contacting Cristal Sumner at csumner@BritishHomeopathic.org so that organisers know what sort of numbers to expect.
Write to your MP
You can find your MP's contact details at: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/
Copy you letter to the BMA at:
Dr. Hamish Meldrum Chairman
British Medical Association
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9JP
Key points would be:
The BMA is proposing resolutions that curtail patient choice and are outside its remit as a trade union.
The BMA has not consulted homeopathic doctors or patients before proposing such resolutions.
The NHS spends very little on homeopathy, but it often helps patients who have not been helped by conventional methods and who have chronic health problems. Since homeopathic medicines account for only 0.001% of the NHS drugs budget this is immensely cost effective for NHS.
Information about your positive personal experience of homeopathy.
Best wishes from the H:MC21 team.
You can find out more about H:MC21 and the work they do at www.hmc21.org
Homeopathic Remedies Kill Cancer Cells Without Harming Healthy Cells
A recent study published in the February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology has documented that homeopathic remedies applied to breast cancer cells caused significant cell death, while resulting in nearly indiscernible harm to normal breast cells. The finding cannot be explained by a placebo effect, as it was a lab experiment on cell lines, results were reached using automated equipment, and proper controls were included.The study, done by the respected MD Anderson Cancer Center, was entitled, "Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells".
Lead author, Moshe Frenkel MD, stated, "We felt that homeopathy needed to be tested in the same way that we test new chemotherapeutic drugs. We were quite impressed to find that homeopathic remedies have similar effects to chemotherapy on breast cancer cells but without affecting normal cells, a very exciting finding. As far as we know, this is the first study that evaluated the effect of homeopathic remedies on breast cancer cells."
Modern automated equipment was used to test the effects of four homeopathic remedies on two adenocarcinoma cell lines. Controls of normal breast cells and cells treated only with solvent were done. Results were presented in graph form, a method often used in pre-clinical trials of drugs. The methodology is similar to testing done on paclitaxel (generic for Taxol®).
Cell lines were cultured and treated with solvent or solvent with one of four remedies added: Carcinosin 30C, Conium maculatum 3C, Phytolacca decandra 200C, and Thuja occidentalis 30C. These particular remedies were chosen because they've been used effectively at the P. Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation in Kolkata, India. They had submitted examples of their treatment to the National Cancer Institute, which accepted that they provided sufficient evidence to warrant further research-which led to this study.
The results were remarkable. The viability of cells treated only with solvent were inhibited, on average, by 20-30% in the three cell lines, to a maximum of 35% at the longest exposures. All four remedies further inhibited viability in the two breast cancer cell lines, but did not show a significant reduction in the normal cell lines. The amount varied by cell line, remedy, concentration of remedy, and time. One of the cancer cell lines was less viable in the face of homeopathic remedies than the other.
The two most effective remedies on these cell lines were Carcinosin and Phytolacca. At 5µl/ml, they reduced viability in one cancer cell line at 48 & 72 hours by 50-65%, and at 10µl/ml, viability was reduced by 65-70%. In the other cancer cell line at the same times, 5µl/ml concentrations reduced viability by 60-75% and at 10µl/mo, viability was reduced by 70-80%. The maximum viability reduction by solvent alone in the two cancer cell lines was 30-35%.
The effects of all the remedies on the normal cell line were nearly indistinguishable from the solvent's effect.
The Self-styled Debunkers
As with any study that documents homeopathy's effectiveness, the debunkers have come out on this one. If anything, they're even more ferocious this time. From my reading, most of the claims are simply false, apparently the result of not having read it. Claims that there were no controls are obviously false. There were, in fact, two types-untreated normal cells and solvent-treated normal cells. Claims that the solvent must have caused any effects-obviously based on the presumption that homeopathy can't work, therefore it must have been the solvent-whereas the study clearly distinguished between results of solvent alone and solvent with remedies added. Claims are made that there are no statistics, but the ones quoted above came directly out of the paper. Claims were made that no margin of error was calculated, but that particular statistic applies to population sampling, which this wasn't. Then, there were claims that no other error calculation was made, but again, that wasn't true. The standard deviation was included in all the bar graphs.
There was one claim that seems, at first, to be valid. That's the claim that the data weren't included in the report. That's true. However, what they don't comment about is that similar studies also don't show the data. One in particular was a paclitaxel (Taxol®) study that was done much like this one. If they don't like it, where are there complaints about studies on pharmaceuticals?
In fact, such studies are referenced and used to support human trials. The Taxol study entitled, "Paclitaxel-induced apoptosis in MCF-7 breast-cancer cells"(2) used only one cancer cell line (the same one that homeopathic remedies were better at controlling) and compared Taxol only with caffeine. The Taxol study reported its results in graphs, as did this one using homeopathic remedies. Yet, it was used as a reference in 61 later trials, including ones on humans.
At best, the skeptics have a double standard when it comes to homeopathy studies. At worst, they make claims that show they haven't even read what they're trying to debunk. Homeopathy detractors routinely trot out the tired old canard that no scientific proof exists that it works. This study and a comparison with a similar one demonstrate the hollowness of that claim.
What the MD Anderson Study Shows
The study done by Frenkel and his team provides compelling evidence that homeopathic remedies have an impact on living cells, and may indicate an ability to distinguish between healthy and diseased tissues. It doesn't demonstrate how homeopathic remedies work, though it does provide some evidence for cellular changes they produce in some cancerous cells.
At the very least, Frenkel's team has shown that homeopathy and its remedies should be taken seriously, and further studies should be done.
If you have breast cancer and are considering homeopathic treatment, please be aware that this study does not show efficacy for any particular homeopathic remedy on your particular cancer. Do not try to self-treat.
Treating Acute Respiratory & Ear ComplaintsHomeopathy as Effective as Conventional Medicine
A study using 57 primary care centers in Europe showed that homeopathy is as effective at treating acute respiratory and ear complaints as conventional treatment. Data of 1,577 patients was evaluated and 857 patients received homeopathic treatment.
The study was designed as an international, multi-centre, comparative cohort study of non-randomised design. Patients, presenting themselves with at least one chief complaint: acute (≤ 7 days) runny nose, sore throat, ear pain, sinus pain or cough, were recruited at 57 primary care practices in Austria (8), Germany (8), the Netherlands (7), Russia (6), Spain (6), Ukraine (4), United Kingdom (10) and the USA (8) and given either homeopathic or conventional treatment. Therapy outcome was measured by using the response rate, defined as the proportion of patients experiencing ‘complete recovery' or ‘major improvement' in each treatment group. The primary outcome criterion was the response rate after 14 days of therapy.
The study concluded that homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints, including those in children was at least as good as conventional medicine. And as importantly, the study also showed that the onset of improvement was much faster for patients using homeopathy with adults having less adverse reactions using homeopathy.
"However, onset of improvement within the first 7 days after treatment was significantly faster upon homeopathic treatment both in children (p = 0.0488) and adults (p = 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions occurred more frequently in adults of the conventional group than in the homeopathic group ..."
homeopathyresource April 13, 2009
Cuba Reports Successful Use of Homeopathy In Over 2.5 Million People
Due to economic constraints and restrictions on medicines, Cuba has been forced to look for alternatives. Every year a known disease, Leptospirosis, breaks out following the annual floods. Click on the link below for a report, from a Cuban conference in December 2008, telling how 2.5 million Cubans received homeopathic nosodes, with amazing results.
Annabel Croft: Why I have come to rely on homeopathic medicine
As Wimbledon fortnight begins, player-turned-TV presenter Annable Croft describes how her life has been transformed by homeopathy.