The Swiss Government – through their Social Insurance Office (FSIO) – have just published the results of their report on Homeopathy, commissioned in 2006.

Its conclusion is that Homeopathy is a valuable addition to conventional healthcare. This conclusive finding overturns previous negative studies in Switzerland from authorities like the Swiss Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme (PEK).

Rather than take the rigid, schematic and exclusively quantitative (negative) outcome approach of PEK, or the meta-analytical and systematic approach of the Cochrane Collaboration, the new study looks not just at the effectiveness of a particular homeopathic intervention, it also looks at the effectiveness of homeopathy in everyday use.

So it has taken into account the real world effectiveness of homeopathy in terms of how it is used, its safety and its cost-effectiveness.

In the report the authors comment on the Shang et al 2005 study on Homeopathy and explain that : “We can say with certainty that the Shang et al 2005 study does not prove that homeopathy has no effect.”

The 300 page report, looks at all the scientific literature in homeopathy and summarises 22 reviews, 20 of which show positive results for homeopathy.

Four of these show strong evidence that homeopathy, as a system of medicine, is efficacious.

The English translation of the Swiss Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report on Homeopathy is called ‘Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs.’and is printed by Springer.

Amy Lansky, an author who experienced the cure of her son’s autism with homeopathy, discusses how homeopathy is an appropriate medicine for the time we are living in.

These days, with “quackbuster” attacks on homeopathy occurring on almost a daily basis, we in the homeopathic world are anxious to prove ourselves on conventional terms. For example, we hope that increased awareness of the many high-quality double-blind placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy will stem the tide of negative media and public opinion. It is certainly true that proving the power of homeopathic treatment in modern scientific terms is important. Studies like those by Rustum Roy [1], Jacques Benveniste [2], and Nobel-prize winner Luc Montagnier [3], which unequivocally demonstrate the information-carrying power of ultradilutions and/or focus on the way a remedy’s information is actually stored within them, may be even more important, because they not only demonstrate a potential mechanism for homeopathy, but might also help us improve the delivery of our homeopathic remedies to patients.

But have you ever wondered why the quackbusters and their media spokespeople are so pervasive and persistent right now? For one thing, there is ample evidence that they are funded by big pharma [4]—perhaps the deepest pockets now on our planet. And the truth is, big pharma does have a reason to fear. As I pointed out in my December 2009 article in the Mercola Newsletter [5], if the results of researchers like Benveniste and Montagnier become more widely accepted, people will realize that any substance— including allopathic drugs—can be potentized and manufactured at virtually zero cost. That would spell the end of big pharma.

But there may actually be a more profound reason for the rise of the quackbusters. As Bob Dylan said, “The times they are a’changing.” Slowly but surely, a new and deeper kind of awareness and consciousness is spreading across the globe. Once relegated to the “New Age” set or to mystics, more and more people in the mainstream are engaging in meditation and are beginning to develop an awareness that humanity, nature, and the Earth itself are all interconnected on a deeper level. We may be on the cusp of a revolution in human consciousness. And a world populated by more deeply conscious humans will also be a world in which alternative energy-based medicines, like homeopathy, will be the norm.

Of course, the desperation of big Pharma is a symptom of the desperation of conventional medicine overall. The writing is on the wall for them. Allopathy is failing, creating deeper disease, or becoming too toxic to bear, and people are turning away bit by bit—some out of financial necessity, but many out of increased awareness of the reality of the energy body—the vital force. So rather than trying to convince people that homeopathic treatment is as good as an allopathic pill, perhaps our strategy should be to reach out more effectively to the growing number of people who are evolving and “waking up.” We need to let them know that homeopathy is perhaps the best and most complete form of “spiritual” energy-based medicine. After all, most homeopaths and many homeopathic patients know this to be true. Why not flaunt it—at least in the appropriate circles?

It is also wise to remember something interesting about the 1800’s—the time in which homeopathy experienced its greatest growth and acceptance. This was also a time in which spiritual beliefs were very much in vogue among the elite, and indeed, many homeopaths were involved in religious movements tied to this ethos—the Swedenborgian Church being most notable (whose ideology influenced the great American homeopath James Tyler Kent and through him, the practice of homeopathy worldwide). Perhaps the confluence of such beliefs and the growth of homeopathy was not an accident. Many people at that time understood their reality in a different way and were thus more open to a form of medicine that operated in a different way too. The same explanation might underlie the immense popularity and acceptance of homeopathy in India.

Of course, much of this was swept away with the advance of modern science in the early 1900’s, and along with it, the rise of modern drugs and allopathy. But the times they are a’changing. Humanity isn’t exactly returning to the mystical views of the past, but rather, is incorporating a deeper, more “spiritual” element into science itself. The science of people like Roy, Benveniste, and Montagnier is finally catching up with homeopathy. And so is the consciousness of humanity. Homeopathy’s time is coming.

I have been deeply interested in the more mystical side of reality for a long time, and especially how it can be understood from a scientific perspective. My new book, Active Consciousness: Awakening the Power Within (www.activeconsciousness.com) [7], weaves together research on psychic phenomena and energy-based medicines like homeopathy, and information gleaned from a wide variety of esoteric sources (Kabbalah, Gurdjieff, Steiner etc).

References

[1] M.L. Rao, et al. “The Defining Role of Structure (Including Epitaxy) in the Plausibility of Homeopathy.” Homeopathy, 96, pp. 175–182 (2007).

[2] E. Davenas, et al. “Human Basophil Degranulation Triggered by Very Dilute Antiserum Against IgE.” Nature, Volume 333, Number 6176, pp. 816–181 (June 1988).

[3] L. Montagnier, et al.,“Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences.” Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci, 1: 81–90 (2009).

[4] H. Stevenson. “Quackbusters Are Busted!” (July 2010). See: http://www.gaia-health.com/articles251/000277-quackbusters-are-busted.shtml.

[5] A. Lansky. “Could This ‘Forbidden Medicine” Eliminate the Need for Drugs?” or “Why the Skeptics Love to Hate Homeopathy.” Mercola Newsletter (December 22, 2009). See: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/22/Why-Skeptics-Love-to-Hate-Homeopathy.aspx.

[6] A. Lansky. Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy. Portola Valley, California: R.L.Ranch Press (2003) (www.impossiblecure.com).

[7] A. Lansky. Active Consciousness: Awakening the Power Within. Portola Valley, California: R.L.Ranch Press (2011) (www.activeconsciousness.com).

New research from a joint UCLA – Harvard Medical Schools study claims that medication studies in the top medical journals are often actually designed in a way that provides misleading – or confusing – results.

The researchers looked at every randomised medical trial over a 2 – year period (June 2008 – Sept 2010) published in 6 of the top medical journals: The Lancet, the British Medical Journal , the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Archives of Internal Medicine

The findings, published in the ‘Journal of General Internal Medicine’, looked at all these studies including those that used the three specific, most commonly used types of outcome measures (covering 98% of the studies) – ones which have received increasing criticism from scientific experts.

Surrogate outcomes (37% of studies): these are most likely to be commercially funded by pharmaceutical companies and look at ‘intermediate markers’ and are not thought to be a good indicator of the eventual clinical outcomes they are ‘linked to’. These studies, for example, look at  a heart medication’s ability to lower blood pressure, but whilst this is a good measure, it may not be a good indicator of the medication’s impact on the more important clinical outcomes, like heart attacks.

Composite outcomes (34%): these make it difficult to understand the effects of a number of specific outcomes by grouping a number of multiple individual outcomes – “of unequal importance” –  together. Critics give the example of grouping outcomes like hospitalisations and mortality — and making conclusions linking the two together.

Disease-specific mortality (27%): like Surrogate Outcome Research, these types of study are again most likely to be commercially funded by pharmaceutical companies and may be misleading as they only look at deaths from one specific cause – rather than looking at these deaths from any cause. Critics point out that this may be misleading because, even if a given treatment reduces one type of death, it could increase the risk of dying from another cause, to an equal or greater extent. Trials that used surrogate outcomes and disease-specific mortality were more likely to be exclusively commercially funded — for instance, by a pharmaceutical company.

Lead author, Dr. Michael Hochman said: “Patients and doctors care less about whether a medication lowers blood pressure than they do about whether it prevents heart attacks and strokes or decreases the risk of premature death. Knowing the effects of a medication on blood pressure does not always tell you what the effect will be on the things that are really important, like heart attacks or strokes. Similarly, patients don’t care if a medication prevents deaths from heart disease if it leads to an equivalent increase in deaths from cancer.”

The researchers undertaking this study went as far as to suggest that “commercial sponsors” may promote the use of outcomes that are most likely to indicate favourable results for their products.

Hochman went on to explain that: “For example, it may be easier to show that a commercial product has a beneficial effect on a surrogate marker like blood pressure than on a hard outcome like heart attacks. In fact, studies in our analysis using surrogate outcomes were more likely to report positive results than those using hard outcomes like heart attacks.”

In Cuba, as there are, in theory, no ‘capitalist’ controls on market development, they have always developed medical products to meet their own needs and not just for profit. As part of this approach they have used homeopathic remedies pragmatically and interchangeably alongside ‘conventional’ drugs for treating various conditions.

The brand, named Vidatox, is said to have anti-tumourial, analgesic and anti-inflammatory qualities that, according to the producers, help improve the quality of life of cancer patients.Most practitioners will be aware of the successful, widespread preventative use of homeopathic remedies to treat millions of people in Cuba during the widespread leptospirosis crisis a few years ago. And now a Cuban pharmaceutical company, Labioform, has started exporting a homeopathic medicine made from the venom of blue scorpions, into Europe to meet what it says is a high demand from cancer patients.

Labiofam is marketing its homeopathic remedy in the same way that other cancer-fighting drugs are marketed and has started distribution in Belarus and is now campaigning for distribution in the UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary and Turkey, amongst other European markets.

Even though demand for the product is said to be exceptional in Italy, the company – through the Cuban Embassy in Rome – has said; “for now, unfortunately, it will not be possible to respond positively to the thousands of requests pouring in to Labiofam, since its production is still very limited.”

The product is claimed to be a “natural, complementary alternative in the treatment of oncological patients.” See full report here.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK, in response to complaints about the ‘advertising claims’ made by practitioners on their websites, has made ruling after ruling against individual practitioners, telling them to stop making any claims (“treat’, ‘cure’, ‘restore’) about their therapies. The ASA expanded its remit to ‘police’ advertising claims, on behalf of the advertising industry in the UK, in March this year.

This enormous surge in complaints – and negative response from the ASA – comes after another extremely well-funded ‘anti-complementary medicine’ campaign by pressure groups, including the Nightingale Collaboration and the group behind the development of a ‘Practitioner Targeting’ piece of software programme called FishBarrel. It automatically searches the web for any claims like this – and, if they are coming from UK-based practitioners, reports them to the ASA (“like shooting fish in a barrel”).

As the ASA has so many claims to go through, it is understood that the Nightingale Collaboration has been temporarily asked to stop sending complaints – until the ASA gets through its ‘backlog’.

The Complementary Medical Association (The CMA) has had a formal meeting with the ASA to discuss this matter. The ASA explained that all they do is respond to complaints about advertising claims. They inform people that a complaint has been made against them and ask these people to ‘prove’ that their claim is supported by evidence.

To date, the ASA claim that none of the practitioners they have issued notice of a complaint to, have ever submitted any evidence whatsoever to support their claims. This is despite the fact that they refused to take evidence from practitioners who offered to send it in.

The CMA explained that after a quick (48-hour ‘snapshot’) survey of practitioners in the UK these people felt “terrified” by the formal ‘legal-sounding’ letters that the ASA sends out. The ASA denied that its letters imply they are a legal body, or that they could in any way be seen as ‘threatening’ by their recipients.

In discussion with various practitioners and governing bodies for therapists The CMA believes that the evidence shows that practitioners are running in fear of these ASA rulings and are taking down their websites/removing any claims about their therapies – including any testimonials.

If practitioners – and their governing bodies – are no longer allowed to make claims for their therapies what future is there for complementary medicine in the UK?

The CMA will be organising various responses to these new attacks on complementary medicine for CMA Members over the next few months. Support our fight, on your behalf, against these draconian measures and join the CMA. To find out more about the CMA, click here.