Homeopathy, The Controversy In The Uk

Homeopathy seems to have given birth to a great amount of critics over the past few years. The legendary American former magician and sceptic, James Randi, offered one million dollars to any individual that was able prove, during a laboratory situation, that homeopathic treatments healed diseases. (He agreed to include it as part of his challenge in regard to the supernatural) . No-one has so far won the challenge. Though the Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas has taken up the gauntlet and believes Randi to be trying to wriggle out of it.

However that does not make it irrelevant. The modern controversy concerning the efficacy of alternative, or complementary, medicine proves this is a matter in which firmly-held belief is prevalent.

Modern homeopathy has been around for some 200 years, the acknowledged founder being a German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755- 1843) who had great success in the treatment of epidemics of scarlet fever. Communities treated by means of his treatments entirely escaped feared epidemics, including the plague.

What Homeopathy also is very much weighed down with is the mystery that Homeopathic treatment doesn't contain any remedy at all. Lots of people apparently consider that Homeopathy is comparable to Herbalism. In fact Homeopaths take a substance and weaken it again and again again, (a process called "potentisation" in homeopathy) until there may not be a single molecule left of the original ingredient.

The Journal of the American Institute for homeopathy in May 1921 described the success of the homeopathic method in the flu epidemic. A Dr. McCann, from Dayton, Ohio documented that 24,000 cases of flu cared for traditionally had a death rate rate of 28.2 per cent while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a death rate of 1.05 per cent. A very impressive statistic.

Some of the well known people swept up in the furore, amongst others, are Michael Baum, a professor of surgery advocating that National Health Service funds must be utilised for established treatment options. Prince Charles arguing that alternative medicine needs to be given a more substantial part. And additionally contributing fuel to the fire, Dr David Reilly, primary consultant at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital discounting the letter writers as elderly scientific gentleman damning what they do not understand.

The testing regime also is not as severe as for chemical based procedures because the negative effects tend to be, at worst minor, compared with the potential effects of conventional drug treatments. That is why they are extensively assessed for prospective contra-signs. Homeopathic cures are more cost-effective to produce and many of the constituents usually are not patented.

What should be beneficial for patients and also the National Health Service isn't necessarily beneficial for the large drug companies who depend on licensed medications for their profits. The cost is nominal in the context of the multi-billion-pound health budget. In relative terms, so cheap, that it is perhaps an obstacle to greater accessibility.

But homeopathy should not be an either-or option, on financial grounds or as an alternative to other courses of medicine. The Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital treats people struggling with, amongst many other health problems, cancer and depression. If homeopathy succeeds and benefits patients (as it certainly seems to), we should be sufficiently open-minded and content to support it as a complementary procedure in addition to traditional medicinal practises.

In addition, on the 8th December 2003 the worldwide vice president for Glaxo Smith- Kline declared that a large proportion of drugs - more than 90% - only work in 30% to 50% of the people they're prescribed for. Appalling certainly, but should we be that astonished?

A spokesman for the Association of The British Pharmaceutical Industry (trade association for companies in the UK developing prescription medicines) back then was also cited as saying that they often did not know why, and conceded that the answer probably lay 'in a persons genetic make up', so quite clearly traditional medical practise does not have all of the answers.