Homeopathy: the evidence

I myself am pleased recently that the mainstream media finally speak of scientific studies on vitamin D.

But I am appalled today qu'ils continue to conceal from the public the study carried out for the Government of Switzerland on the effectiveness of homeopathy, "Kroc in Healthcare - Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs", led by Dr. Gudrun Bornhoft and Professor Peter f. Matthiessen. (1)

This is the largest study ever conducted by an official entity on homeopathy. And it concluded not only that homeopathy works, but also that it is much more economical than conventional medicine. In fact, it works so that patients should be reimbursed by the Swiss social security.

The Swiss administration, that is exceptionally out of its traditional neutrality, conducted this investigation on homeopathy and other alternative therapies in response to their popularity, both physicians and patients.

Nearly two-thirds of Switzerland health professionals recognize the benefits of alternative medicine, use them about 40%, and 85% of the population wishes that they be integrated into the formal health system.

This study follows a decision of 1998 of the Swiss Government to extend health insurance to many modes of alternative treatments, such as homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), phytotherapy (herbal medicine) and anthroposophic medicine.

However, this measure was provisional and subject to revision according to the result of large-scale studies on the real efficacy of different treatments.

How the evidence was made

The task has been assigned to the Swiss Network for Health Technology Assessment. It is a service created in 1999 by the Swiss federal Government to assess the effectiveness of investments in the field of health.

The report, which comes in the form of a thick book is titled "homeopathy in health: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, cost", and led by Gudrun Bornhoft and Peter f. Matthiessen, of the University of Witten/Herdecke in Germany and of the Pan-Medion Foundation in Zurich. They were reviewed in detail all major studies on homeopathy:
 ?the most important preclinical research: lines of human cells, plants and animals, and biochemical studies;
 ?the human trials, according to the golden rule of the "double-blind randomized and placebo-controlled."
 ?meta-analysis, epidemiological studies, and finally the "systematic reviews", in other words the summaries of all valid scientific data.

The methodology of this report had been used by the Ministry of health of Britain (National Health Service) to assess true effectiveness, security and the best economic options among conventional treatments available, and many international organizations.

Swiss scientists had two major criteria for judging the quality of the studies: internal validity (quality of the design of the study and execution); external validity (how the studies reflect the use which is made of homeopathy in real life).

The research on homeopathy is often conducted by doctors and scientists who do not know the specific procedures of homeopathy or what treatments work best with which patients to assess the external validity is particularly crucial. Many studies published in major journals science and who purport to demonstrate that homeopathy does not work are actually designed originally for failure because researchers are anything.

Sometimes even that researchers use the wrong remedy or not properly use it. Some homeopathic studies have tried to use a single treatment to eliminate a symptom, which is precisely contrary to the homeopathic approach that takes account of the land of the person to adapt the treatment!

After evaluating all available data, the Swiss team concluded that the investigations of high-quality basic research pre-clinical prove that homeopathic high dilution cause "specific and regulatives in cells or organisms changes" (in the text: "regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms").

Among the "systematic reviews" studies conducted on human beings, 20 to 22 have been detected "at least a tendency in favour of homeopathy", and five showed "clear evidence of homeopathic therapy."

The report has established higher particularly strong evidence for the use of homeopathy against respiratory tract infections and allergic reactions: among the studies showing an overall result favourable to homeopathy, six out of seven appeared at least equivalent to conventional interventions and on sixteen placebo-controlled studies, half showed significant results with homeopathy.

The most striking is undoubtedly the fact that the report concluded that the efficacy of homeopathy "may be confirmed by clinical evidence" (in the text: " can be supported by clinical evidence ") and "regarded as safe." Performed correctly, written report, "classical homeopathy has few side effects and the use of high dilutions has no toxic effect" (3).

Bornhoft and Matthiessen concluded there was "insufficient evidence in favour of the clinical efficacy of homeopathy, his absence in noxiousness and its economic character from conventional treatments".

Homeopathy effective at lower cost

The Swiss Government also investigated if homeopathy was a source of savings or additional costs, by studying data from the Swiss insurers, including all consultations, drugs, physical therapies and laboratory analyses.

It appeared that the physicians who specialize in homeopathy cost minimum 15% less than the physicians conventional, although applicants of homeopathy patients have in general more chronic diseases and a less good health - factors that would normally result a higher cost.

***********************************************************************

This article please?

You can receive free similar articles in your e-mail box.

Just that subscribe you health & Nutrition click here.

***********************************************************************

When compared with treatments for specific diseases, homeopathy proved to be a way to save: children affected by respiratory tract infections had fewer relapses and less need of antibiotics that people taking conventional medication.

Homeopathy led less dependence on drugs. Among more than 500 patients with rheumatic diseases, almost a third were able to stop taking their conventional drugs, and another third have reduced their catch.

The homeopathic treatment of infertility offered one of the most important savings compared to conventional treatments.

Homeopathy also reduces the cost of hospitalization: patients using a homeopathic doctor are six times less likely to be hospitalized than those who themselves by conventional medicine.

Many other indirect savings are achieved by homeopathy, as a lower number of days of leave-sickness patients that use.

Finally, people who treat homeopathy have fewer side effects and a better relationship with their doctor. Comparing the satisfaction of 3000 patients treated by the two categories of medicines, a significantly higher number (53%) expressed "completely satisfied" of homeopathy versus 43% for conventional medicines (4).

Alternative medicine are becoming the norm

The Swiss will pave the way for the integration of alternative therapies in conventional health system. Following the 2009 national referendum, where a two-thirds majority voted in favour of the integration of complementary and alternative medicine in the Swiss official care system, the Swiss Health Ministry approved the repayment of five popular alternative medicine: homeopathy, herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, anthroposophic medicine and neural therapy (based on the idea that a trauma causes disturbances in the electromagnetic functioning of tissues).

But the aspect which is the most remarkable in any ca is not only that, thanks to this new report, homeopathy is entered in the constitution and funded by public money, but that it occurred in a country where two of the largest global pharmaceutical companies are based.

This also occurs precisely at the time when the European Union, actively encouraged by the pharmaceutical industry, is busy to prohibit or restrict drastically the availability of nutritional supplements and many alternative treatments.

***********************************************************************

Advertising:

The joint action of the European Union and lobbying of the pharmaceutical industry threatens the natural medicines. Soon, not only the alternative treatments may be banned, but the sources of information on natural medicines also disappear.

Take the lead today! Subscribe to Health Nature Innovation and stay permanently informed of the latest discoveries in advanced natural medicine.

Discover new treatments that Brussels has not yet had the time to ban by clicking here.

***********************************************************************

Notes:
 ->http://Rd.Springer.com/Book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1
 ->http://www.snhta.ch/
 ->Forsch Komplementmed 2006; 13 Supp 2: 19-29
 ->Source: BMC Complement Altern Med, 2008; 8: 52

***********************************************************************

Credit:

This article is a translation/adaptation of "Neutral Switzerland is partial to homeopathy" by Lynne McTaggart, reproduced with the permission of the Publisher. Article published in "What Doctors Don't Tell You", vol 23 no. 2. www.wddty.co.UK