Woman goes to a homeopath who has funded her own training in homeopathy as she wishes to help people to get better without resorting to a life of drugs (not paid for by the tax payer, not earning £80K ++). Homeopath takes the woman’s case based on the emotional and physical symptoms that the woman tells her. Notices that the symptoms are similar to that of  condition X, alerts the woman that she should go back to her GP and ask if her condition could be X. 

Woman finds surgery shut for holiday so she goes to a hospital where her condition is confirmed as X.

Woman thinks ‘How could her GP miss it?   GP had done a physical examination? Why did she give me that prescription when I didn’t have the symptoms that required that prescription? Why was I worse after seeing my GP?’

Homeopath had gone on a collection of symptoms and knew that it accurately described condition X. Homeopath had never encountered this condition before, she simply noted the symptoms and did her job.  She takes her responsibility as a health professional seriously,  alerts clients to any health issues that needed further investigation. 

The homeopathic medicine that the woman took helped her condition. She’s grateful that one of her healthcare professions was able to make an accurate diagnosis and understand what was happening in her body. 

Homeopaths are responsible well trained practitioners. They are trained to listen to what their clients say, observe them closely and take detailed notes of their symptoms. 

Not all GPs make this kind of mistake, most GPs listen to their ‘patients’ , make correct diagnosis and offer appropriate treatment. 

GPs and homeopaths should be working together to improve people’s  health.

Homeopaths should  be judged on their results, not by the biased opinions and propaganda from the bad science bloggers. 

Real homeopaths treat real people, bad science should start to get real.

In a prospective, multicentre cohort study with 103 homeopathic primary care practices in Germany and Switzerland, data from all patients (age >1 year) consulting the physician for the first time were observed. The main outcome measures were: The patients’ perceived change in complaint severity (numeric rating scales from 0 = no complaint to 10 = maximal severity) and quality of life as measured by the SF-36 at baseline, and after 2 and 8 years.

” Some homeopathic medicines may ease the side-effects of cancer treatments without interfering in how they work, a scientific review has concluded.

The Cochrane Collaboration said, while there were few studies, it did appear that some effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy could be alleviated.

It highlighted in particular calendula to prevent dermatitis, and what is known as Traummel S for mouth sores.

But it said further work was needed to confirm these findings.

Eight studies with a total of 664 participants were considered by the group, led by Dr Sosie Kassab, a specialist in complementary cancer therapies at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.

Three studies looked at preparations to counter the skin reactions of radiotherapy, but only one was deemed to be high quality.

This, from France, suggested that calendula – from marigolds – reduced acute dermatitis in breast cancer patients more effectively than the more conventional treatment trolamine. It involved 254 patients.

No interference

One of three studies on treating the side-effects of chemotherapy was deemed high quality.

This found that Traumeel S, a mixture which includes belladonna, arnica, St John’s wort and echinacea, was effective in reducing stomatisis – painful mouth sores – when used as a mouthwash.

Two other studies of homeopathic treatments on menopausal symptoms brought on by cancer treatments were declared to be of high quality but did not provide any evidence that the treatments worked.

There was no evidence to show that any of these treatments interfered with cancer therapies, and indeed one study showed that radiotherapy was less frequently interrupted in the group receiving homeopathic care.”

Individualized homeopathic therapy for male infertility”, Homeopathy, 2002 by Gerhard I and Wallis E of University of Heidelberg, Germany, Dept of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproduction, showed significant evidence of improved sperm density, motility and general health of men over an average 10.3 months of homeopathic treatment.

http://www.amcofh.org/documents/HomeopathyInfertilityResearch.pdf

Find out more at http://www.homeopathicgarden.co.uk/content/fertility.htm