Homeopathic help for allergy season
If it's springtime, it must be allergy season. While most of us are thrilled to see the budding leaves and blooming flowers, for others it ushers in weeks of irritating and sometimes debilitating allergy symptoms. Rather than retreating to a vaccuum-sealed chamber until the pollen stops blowing, homeopathy may well ease your symptoms and enable you to enjoy normal life despite whatever is blowing in the wind.
Although allergies tend to fall under more of a constitutional umbrella for treatment (some people have an inherent susceptibility while other people don’t notice a thing), there are still some homeopathic remedies which can often prove helpful in easing the acute symptoms of allergies. For those whose constitution matches one of these remedies on a deeper level, there may even be a broader based improvement beyond just alleviating allergy symptoms; in this case, the whole susceptibility to allergic substances will be lessened and over time, may become a thing of the past. For others, these remedies may bring temporary relief of allergy symptoms but because they are not the true constitutional remedy, such relief may not continue long-term. Often a remedy which may relieve for a period of time will lose its effectiveness as it hasn’t stimulated a cure at a deeper level. But regardless of whether you luck out with a deeply-acting remedy that matches your constitution or simply find your symptoms temporarily palliated without the risk of side effects pharmaceutical products carry, homeopathy can be a big help for anyone who suffers through springtime with congestion, itchy eyes, runny nose and the general exhaustion and malaise allergy suffering brings.
For most people, going to the health food store and purchasing a combination homeopathic remedy specific for allergies is the easiest way to hopefully find some help. While combination remedies go against one of the classic rules of homeopathy (which is one remedy at a time), by combining several remedies which all have allergic symptoms as a strong part of their picture, the idea is that hopefully one of them will resonate with you and therefore provide relief. As you have read in this column again and again, homeopathy is individual medicine – what works for one person with a particular condition won’t necessarily work for another person with the same condition. However a number of remedies that have a strong picture of specific symptoms (such as runny nose, sneezing, itching eyes, etc.) may frequently be used successfully in certain conditions (such as allergies). Just as there are a small number of remedies which are frequently called for to heal influenzas or injuries, so there are a small number of remedies which are frequently called for in allergy symptoms and they will be grouped together in homeopathic combination remedies specific for allergies.
Here are a couple of remedies which will be included in most homeopathic combination remedies for allergies:
Allium cepa – imagine cutting up an onion. Think of the stinging, itching watery eyes and nose, and tickling leading to lots of sneezing. This remedy is made from an onion and it is often curative for the very symptoms cutting into a fresh onion will create. Often the discharge from the nose will be acrid and irritate the skin. Symptoms generally improve out in the open air and worsen inside warm, stuffy rooms.
Sabadilla – this plant remedy has symptoms of violent sneezing, copious watery discharge, itching of the nose and the palate and a lot of stuffiness in the nose. Eyes may burn and turn red and there can be a headache along with the stuffed nose. This person may feel chilly and wants warmth – drinks, food, extra sweaters – to feel better.
So for those miserable with allergy symptoms, heading to the health food store and picking up one or two combination remedies to try is a low cost and no risk route that may well bring you quick relief. If you have tried a few different combinations and still suffer strong allergy symptoms then you may consider constitutional treatment with a professional homeopath as your system obviously needs a different remedy than those present in the combinations. Although this route is more costly and time-consuming, the right constitutional remedy will lessen the overall susceptibility to those substances that bother you and make springtime something to look forward to, rather than an ordeal to be suffered through.
(6) Comments
One we can "agree" upon (tongue firmly planted in cheek!)
All things being equal, I can see how a homeopathic concotion may help relieve allergy symptoms. To those of us with asthma, this will come as no real surprise: drinking water can help reduce the symptoms of allergies (some times).
Where homeopathic concotions are nothing other than water in the first place...well, you get the picture.
Opportunistic heckling aside, the question can be simply put: "Is homeopathy useful in the treatment of allergic, ENT and respiratory conditions?"
No.
http://www.library.nhs.uk/cam/viewResource.aspx?resID=262089&code=2b1652...
This is research from one of their own--even though Dr. Leckbridge goes on to attempt to dilute that finding (sorry, I couldn't resist!).
Note how Drury, rather disngenuously I believe, leads readers into her (for-profit) centre by directing them, first, to head "to the health food store and picking up one or two combination remedies to try is a low cost and no risk route that may well bring you quick relief."
To say this is a 'no risk' route is seriously disingeuous, bordering on a delusional--if not outright ignroant--position on the (well-documented) dangers of homeopathy...but I'll deal with that in a minute...
In the meantime, notice how quickly she then directs readers--who may "suffer strong allergy symptoms"-- away from medical advice (dangerous, given the potential for developed anaphylaxis), and toward her own snake-oil clinic...which, of course, "is more costly and time-consuming."
Costly, indeed: it could 'cost' you anything from continued suffering to, given the possibility of developed anaphylaxis, your life (see reference to one such case below); and, all for an unsound, non-reproduced, unsicentific (pseudo-scienitific), "approach"!
What are some of the other potential costs?
Delayed Treatment : Homeopathic preparations can be obtained over-the-counter. Patients may be misled into self-medication when they actually have a serious illness that requires conventional medical attention. This is particularly a problem since these remedies are often named after the symptoms they are reputed to treat (e.g., Bleeding, Exhaustion, Earache, Pain, Bedwetting, Skin Relief, etc.). It is quite possible that someone with any of these symptoms may be suffering from a condition that requires more than the placebo response.
Wasted Resources: Homeopathic treatments can be expensive. Since many practitioners regard them as placebos, their cost and the cost of consulting a homeopathic physician could be considered wasted money.
To direct people away from sound medical interventions is unethical--period.
And it would be unethical in homeopathy if they were a professional medical (or scientific) body.
Of course, there are no professional ethical repercussions because homeopathy is not considered an actual medical science, so if they delay you from treatment (etc) leading to a serious medical problem it is a consumer issues problem under, usually, nutrition guidelines--but NOT a professional conduct issue. What this means is that you have to sue like you would your car comapny unless it is severe enough to warrant the Department of Justice--through an inquest--to find reason to lay criminal charges.
How disingenuous is that!
In the end, Homeopathy is nothing more than an industry trying to front itself as a medical science. When it suits them, they ride on the coat-tails of science and medical science; when it does not, they cry foul and talk about the--real and imagined--problem with science and medical science claiming to have the 'secret pill' solution for your ills, but one, of course, that is "is more costly and time-consuming" (and useless, if not dangerous).
Now to return to Drury's ignorant claim that homeopathy presents "no-risks":
An example of the dangers of 'delayed treatment' are evident in the case of 9 month-old Gloria Thomas where the New South Wales "Coroner has found there is sufficient evidence for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider laying charges against the parents of a baby who died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies" (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/...)
Bandolier has an excellent review of homeopathy and its dangers (See below; Bandolier is "an independent journal about evidence-based healthcare, written by Oxford scientists")
The following quote sums this up as well, or better, than I could, the dangers of homeopathy:
“Until large and well conducted randomised trials tell us differently, the conclusion is that homeopathy does not work, and its use instead of remedies of proven effectiveness is not a matter of trivial implication. Members of the public are relieved of much money each year by homeopaths. There’s little evidence they are relieved of any suffering.” (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band116/b116-8.html)
All the research and evidence against homepathy is not only widely available though multiple avenues, but is soundly peer-reviewed, reproduced, and well documented.
What this means, in my opinion, is simply that homeopaths are dangerous, ill-informed, disingenuous charlatan's.
Let's hope that we won't have to wait for a case like little Gloria Thomas' to see this industry shut-down for what it is: bunk.
cavaet emptor
While websites and clinical
While websites and clinical trials continue to argue both for and against homeopathy, one thing your comments continue to avoid mentioning is the potential for serious side effects of pharmaceutical drugs. Even Tylenol has now been implicated in causing children's asthma (www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=107372) and it's a known case of liver damage - sometimes fatally, as even Wikepedia states.
The press continues to write of pharmaceutical drugs and even over-the-counter medications being recalled on a regular basis due to their dangers. While you may not believe homeopathic remedies work, plenty of people continue to be healed by them, and without the risk of pharmaceutical side-effects. For people who either cannot take pharmaceuticals or have not found relief through them (another large category of people) or who would like something that won't make them drowsy or impotent or retain fluid or harm internal organs, homeopathy just might be worth a try. But to each his own, we all must find the course of healing that works best for us, and accept that not everyone else will approve.
By the way, in no way am I suggesting people suffering from allergies not see their doctor nor do I have a financial interest in any health food stores. Most people suffering from allergies have undoubtedly spent many hours in doctor's offices and clinics and if their allergies are relieved, that's great! But for those who haven't been helpd, then homeopathy is something else to consider trying in the search for relief.
Sleights of hand
First, there are no longitudinal, large sample trials that support homeopathy. If you're suggesting that there are please cite them specifically. And please do not, like you've done in the past, link to the main (and general) NHS library without exact citation.
Second, there are dangers in modern pharmaceutical sciences, but you're not saying anything that isn't already well known and for which there are extensive procedures, policies, and oversight mechanisms for--here, you're being disingeuous.
It is certainly true that there are dangers involved in almost every aspect of modern medicine; however, these are offset by their astounding successes; the fact that they are monitored objectively and competitively by multiple industry, governmental, and medical regulating bodies; and, that when erros occur--and yes they occur (thank you Captain Obvious!?!)--they are reported, found, and dealt with via processes and oversight set in place by that very community--not by the ill-informed and opportunistic finger wagging critics of science like you, Susan.
The short comings of the pharmaceutical industry are, as I just mentioned, well documented...you haven't uncovered anything that isn't already well-established and documented. Perhaps more importantly, the problems even within the pharmaceutical model themselves do not detract from the successes of the pharmacists, bio-chemists, moleculr biologists, geneticists, etc, etc, etc, that are involved in advancing and improving medical science.
What have you added to such debate..?
Absolutely nothing, but you would like to be seen as doing so.
And it is because of such states-of-affairs that I continue to hold you and your ilk to account. A person that has devoted as much time to telling readers about your 'field' as you have cannot be unaware of, on the one hand, the fundamental problems and short-comings within it--which you continue to gloss over and ignore--while, on the other hand, trying to castigate modern medicine--however inaccurately and ill-informed you may be.
How you expect to not be seen as disingenuous or lacking in integrity is what is beyond me.
Another aspect of your responses that is most troubling is the sheer lack of critical thinking involved in them.
Take this response, for example: You hold modern pharmaceuticals to account as if doing so some how presents evidence for your case--it does not...it cannot!?! In no field of inquiry does the shortcoming of one area of research act as evidence for the soundness of another.
Not only has science and modern medicine been its own best critic, but it has illustrated itself as both very cautious and very conservative. And there is a sound--very sound--reason for doing so: First, when you make a claim the burden of proof is on the person (etc) to provde evidence for that claim. If they cannot (read: cold fusion) then there is no reason to accept it. Secondly, even if some evidence is presented, if it flies in the face of what is known--that is to say, it is extra-ordinary--then it requires extraordinary evidence to be accepted.
As Physicist Carl Sagan stated: "Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence."--Period!
...And this is where pseudosciences like homeopathy fall down: not only do they not provide sound evidence within the norms of research, but , when some anomolous findings are found, they immediately jump to turning over all of the body of the known fields which said findings would overturn...but without any such extraordinary evidence...without, in fact, anything but occasioanly anomolous research findings (most of which even the researchers of those findings can only state that their findings require (a) a larger contrl sample and (b) more investigation).
I cannot see how you expect readers to accept you as some form of authority and then, when you commit such astounding errors in critical thinking as you have made or display such ignorance of science and medical research as you have, you think that you can expempt yourself from being called out as a charlatan. By your own hand you're either abysmally ignorant or absolutely disingenuous.
Readers can see this quite easily by looking at Susan's final response: in the face of a relatively sound critique of her article, she reduces this to a pithy axiom: "To each their own."
Personally, I have more faith in, and respect for, the readership than you seem to do, Susan.
Anti-Homeopathist Tongue Wag Much, Say Little, Signify Nothing!!
Consider the source...
As I've said in previous posts, Mr. Pannozzi's rants apply nothing other than the big lie approach: say it often enough and say it loud enough and hope that the proverbial squeaky wheel gets the grease. Add to this finger-wagging and, well, readers just need look at the posts (here and elsewhere) to see what I mean.
And, unfortunately, sometimes this sows doubt...
In the end, fortunately, people--even those who have suffered through wasting time and money (and possibly health) with snake-oil like homeopathy--figure things out for themselves.
As has often been said in regards to homeopathy, when homeopaths and those who believe in homeopathy find themselves really ill, they go to real doctors to get helped. Thankfully, it is only rarely that such quack treatments cause more harm than time and money, as in the case of Gloria Thomas.
My only interest here is to ensure readers have access to credible information; and, as I've also said before, I value my time enough not to bother to engage directly with the rants and ravings of the likes of Pannozzi.
Personally, I have more faith in the readers than to believe the majority will be sucked into the 'squeaky wheel' approach. Readers, I honestly believe, can look and comapre the quality of the links, research, and posts here and determine the integrity of each and, then, choose their best course of action.
Mr. Pannozzi is well known on net as an internet 'troll' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29). His methods of 'argumentation' amount to, sadly, little more than obfuscation, emphasis on irrelevent information in other posts (e.g the libel against Singh, instead of any counter-argument); cherry-picking issues and then rephrasing them to suit his own agenda, personal attacks, rants, and, as mentioned, emphasis on the big lie approach, and on and on and on.
His evidence: gross misunderstanding of research; ignorance of what constitutes research; cherry-picking findings (also called a 'confirmation bias'); a clear agenda; close-mindedness: out-of context readings of links; reference to questionable or amateur websites; anecdotal information; uncorroborated testimonal; a proclivity for conspiracy theory; etc, etc, etc. Rarely would a reader need to go beyond a closer reading of the responses here to figure out which has the more merit.
In the end, the burden of proof rests upon the homeopaths to present sound research that can be independently verified and that is widely and broadly (not narrowly) representative before this approach can be seen with any credibility. To date it has absolutely failed to do so, and so, it is left to the borderlands of science and the fringes of society--where ranting is sadly, of often tragically, the norm--and, where such pseudo-science and bunk belongs.
Mitchell and Webb