MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

According to Wikipedia, Swiss state insurance funding of homeopathy and four other alternative therapies had been withdrawn after a review in 2005, and a 2009 referendum vote called for state backed health insurance to once more pay for these therapies. In 2012 the Swiss government reinstated them for a trial period until 2017, pending an independent investigation of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the therapies. The rules for the registration of homeopathic remedies without a concrete field of application are more liberal in Switzerland than they are in member countries of the EU. For homeopathic medicines based on well-known low-risk substances, Swissmedic, the regulatory authority, offers inexpensive registration by means of a simplified electronic registration procedure.

Several weeks ago, I have commented on the remarkable position of alternative medicine in Switzerland. Now this website offers further information specifically on homeopathy in Switzerland:

According to a report jointly issued by the Swiss Federal Health Office and the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), the annual expenses for homeopathic treatments and medications in Switzerland amount to roughly CHF 50 million and CHF 31 million, respectively. These numbers seem impressive, particularly if we consider how little each homeopathic remedy costs and how ineffective it is.

But the argument that homeopathy somehow defies scientific testing does not seem to die. For instance, SantéSuisse, the umbrella organisation of health insurers, argues that standardised methods used to test conventional treatments cannot be applied to homeopathy. “It would be unfair to homeopathy if we borrowed the methodologies from conventional therapeutic options when evaluating its effectiveness. The potential risk is that these systematic and internationally accepted methods of biomedical science go against the underlying principles of homeopathy,” said SantéSuisse spokesman Christophe Kämpf. I am afraid, he is talking complete tosh – and he should, of course, know better.

The Swiss Federal Health Office admitted in its press release at the end of March that “no evidence has so far been found to prove that complementary and alternative therapies”, including homeopathy, meet the standard criteria for “effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs.” And a Swiss health office spokesman, Daniel Dauwalder, explained that the decision “reflected the will of the people” in a 2009 referendum. “The health insurance system will cover the cost of alternative therapies according to the principle of trust,” Dauwalder explained. He added that, if the standards of effectiveness, suitability and economy are called into question, SantéSuisse have the right to deny payment.

The core of the issue centres on the questions

  • How to ensure that the physical conditions of patients will not be compromised by unqualified, self-proclaimed clinicians?
  • How can health insurers deal with the potential challenges?

The truth is, alternative treatments will not be unconditionally covered by the basic insurance policies which every Swiss resident must have. Only the costs of treatments administered by certified medical doctors will be considered. Otherwise, the costs incurred can only be reimbursed, if the person insured has purchased supplementary health coverage.

END OF QUOTE

That, however, does not mean that only doctors can practice homeopathy in Switzerland. Lay-homeopaths do exist in the form of Heilpraktiker. While it is true that the national health insurance only covers the treatment by medical doctors, some private health insurances also cover homeopathy by Heilpraktiker.

All this is very different from what some enthusiasts report about homeopathy in Switzerland. Probably the best example for someone obscuring the truth is (yet again) Dana Ullman who stated that “the Swiss government has determined that the very small doses commonly used in homeopathic medicine are both effective and cost-effective.” Little wonder, I might add, because Dana Ullman also keeps on referring to “a remarkable report on homeopathic medicine conducted by and for the government of Switzerland”. He does so despite having been told over and over again that the report in question is firstly utterly unreliable and secondly not by the Swiss government.

Why this odd insistence on disseminating wrong information? Is it because it is good for business, or because homeopaths are not capable of learning (otherwise they would not be homeopaths), or both?

49 Responses to More on the situation of homeopathy in Switzerland

  • Is it because it is good for business, or because homeopaths are not capable of learning (otherwise they would not be homeopaths), or both?

    Both.

    [Is there a prize for the first person with the correct answer?]

  • It’s interesting that Edzard has lamented the “spin” by homeopathy advocates regarding the Swiss government’s alleged support for “effective and cost-effective” homeopathic medicines. Certainly he is correct that there should be ample evidence that such “medicines” are effective and also carry an acceptable risk-benefit ratio.

    I note the increasing recommendations by medical doctors for HPV vaccines, specifically Gardasil and Cervarix. Merck, one of the world’s leading drug manufacturers and a pillar of what some on this site refer to as a foundation of “modern medicine,” enjoys revenues of $450 million for Gardasil, a product to supposedly reduce the rate of cervical cancer. Note that HPV is a self-limiting disorder at a rate of 70% at one year post-diagnosis and over 90% in two years. Also note that 44 girls have been documented to have died resultant to this “medically necessary” vaccination and that over 15,000 girls have developed deleterious effects, including paralysis, seizures, thrombosis, and others. Yet “modern medicine” pseudo-scientists, their drug-company employers, and the complicit “scientific” medical clinicians who write scripts for the vaccine, have continued to advocate for its use. Perhaps they are more concerned about free lunches provided by drug reps or about frivalous torts brought by barristers than they are about their female patients?

    The vaccine is effective for only 4 of 40 strains of the STD which by and large dies on its own within a couple of years. There is no evidence of a relationship between the quite rare cancers it might prevent and the condition for which a female is vaccinated; there is no evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer whatsoever. Furthermore, the trials on the vaccine were performed on girls 15 years of age or older; yet the drug company and its quackster physician surrogates promote it for 9-year olds. Unfortunately, the “scientific” medical establishment’s message to the public has been consistent enough that many females simply believe that the vaccine will keep them from developing cervical cancer. This appears to be another case of the public’s being led by medical quacks to put themselves at significant risk by using a product which is both unproven and carries significant health risks.

    There are 3.4 negative-outcome results with every 100,000 doses of the vaccine, which seems to have no purpose for existence other than profit for its manufacturer. After all, cervical cancer is usually fully curable when detected early via routine Pap screenings. Certainly Merck values its income from this vaccine, as the product is about the only one of its vaccines which has actually been increasing in profitability over the last several years. With a poor risk-benefit analysis, dubious efficacy, and “supporting” research which was performed on an age demographic for which the vaccine is not primarily marketed, it would seem that “modern medicine” has butted heads with the conundrum of promoting quackery disguised and propagandized as science, or sacrificing huge profits. It appears as though quackery promotion is its choice for now.

    • I see you are anti-vaxx as well?
      Your arguments are silly, illogical and wrong.

      • Absolutely I’m NOT anti-vaxx. Simply because I pointed out the problems of a particular vaccine shouldn’t make you assume, wrongly as usual, my positions on other vaccines.

        Please point out and discuss the errors in what I posted. Of course, to do so would require you to type more than one or two sentences, wouldn’t it? Be well.

      • I see you are anti-vaxx as well?
        Your arguments are silly, illogical and wrong.

        In other words, he has all the qualifications of a caring homeopath.

        • Bart can’t read well…..I’m not an advocate of homeopathy.

        • Pity poor Bart…..he seems to not understand what he posts. Clearly his attempt(failed, of course) at humor referenced Edzard’s anti-vaxx assumption. Nice try at deflecting from actually discussing my HPV comments.

          I am not a homeopath. I actually share some of this forum’s opinions regarding homeopathy.

          Is Bart capable of discussing the topic intellectually or is he only able to offer sub-cogent detritus? Based on what Bart has posted in this thread thus far….probably not!

          Bart, please post sensible comments relative to the HPV discussion. Your one-sentence, topic-avoidance posts make you appear more foolish than usual.

          • Your one-sentence, topic-avoidance posts make you appear more foolish than usual.

            Well said. Fantastic. You are God. I bow my head and writhe in the dust in abject admiration for Your Superior Intellect, which I am clearly unworthy and incapable of even dreaming to fathom.

    • Logos-Bios

      Reports made under the VAERS are not the same as adverse effects resulting from vaccines.

  • I have never seen such a large red herring dragged into a discussion on the value of homeopathy.
    Surely Logos-Bios (should that be Bias?) knows that ‘Tu Quoque’ and Red Herrings are logical fallacies.
    Why doe he bother arguing a case for homeopathy when there is none save in the realm of IM (Imaginitive Medicine)?
    Sigh.
    (This ad hominem commentary is also a logical fallacy of course, but I’m not arguing about anything!)

    • The Skeptics’ Club from their high pedestal of oppression appear to have the handle on all things complementary. Meanwhile the CAM users sometimes on this blog try to give their point of view. A stock response can be ‘ red herring’, ‘Tu Quoque’, ‘logical fallacies’ etc which are totally inadequate when discussing serious health issues. Sometimes skeptics of all things CAM find amusement and sarcasm appropriate; health issues are to be taken seriously : I fully understand your need to denigrate supporters of CAM but do you ever, without frustration, actually read the odd comment in support of CAM?

      Again, homeopaths are accused, among others, of being anti-Vax. It is extraordinary your knowledge – can you, as I can, comment that you have seen several homeopaths over a period of 40 years or more? I have, and if you had asked, I would report that none had mentioned vaccines either for or against. I would say they pretty much sit on the fence and if asked advise you to do your own research.

      You make many accusations against chiropractors, healers, etc which has never been my experience; but you are only listening to your own assumptions.

      Outside the mainstream press, if you were inclined to do the resesrch, there is much to be read about the HPV vaccines; there is certainly a lot reported re what is happening in the USA; I believe a government in a certain country is intervening because of the adverse impact on young girls. A well known UK newspaper published an account of a young vaccinated girl.

      With respect, the Skeptics’ Club make vast assumptions, and CAM supporters’ experiences, knowledge etc do not match. Par for the course, I know,,but occasionally we like to put forward our views in the full knowledge they fall on deaf ears. Yes, I know: now that is what you call silly.

      • “…none had mentioned vaccines either for or against…”
        BUT RESPONSIBLE HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS SHOULD ADVISE FOR VACCINATIONS!!!
        “I believe a government in a certain country is intervening because of the adverse impact on young girls.”
        ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS STATEMENT?
        “A well known UK newspaper published an account of a young vaccinated girl.”
        SO WHAT? DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS EVIDENCE? WELL-KNOWN NEWSPAPERS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO REPORT RUBBISH, YOU KNOW.
        “the Skeptics’ Club make vast assumptions, and CAM supporters’ experiences, knowledge etc do not match. ”
        I THINK YOU SHOULD READ THIS POST: http://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/

      • The Skeptics’ Club point out the useless reasoning of CAM advocates because they utterly undermine the therapeutic claims made for CAM interventions.

        Broadly speaking, to avoid ridicule don’t be ridiculous.

        With respect to homeopaths and vaccination, the mealy-mouthed formulation ‘do your own research’ is merely a way to evade responsibility for advising against settled medical knowledge.

        I have dealt with many homeopaths in the real world and online. Their antipathy to vaccination and promotion of the idea of ‘vaccinosis’ as a condition requiring treatment using, by an astonishing coincidence, homeopathy are near universal.

    • Dick, Your comments are quite redundant. You type the same things over and over and over again! Would you care to point out the errors in my post? Likely you will continue to deflect from actually addressing my concerns about the vaccine.

      Why do you think my post was ad hominem? Perhaps you should research “ad hominem” before you impute its actual meaning to another poster’s(er, me) comments.

      Why is it difficult for you to correctly interpret my clearly written comments which were directed at a particular vaccine? Where did you conjure the notion that I was “arguing a case for homeopathy”? Perhaps you need to get more sleep at night to be sharper during your working and blogging hours? Just sayin’………..

      • I refer to Logos-Bios post of 25 September at 16:43 in which he offers much about vaccines.
        But this thread is about the state of homeopathy in Switzerland. Not vaccines.

        I did not say L-B was ‘arguing a case for homeopathy.’
        I said I was not arguing – about anything!
        (Merely expressing my concern at the red herrings employed).

        As to concerns about L-B’s use of ad hominem (attacking the person not the premise, e.g. ‘Merk’, ‘Edzard’, ‘Bart can’t read’, moi) – that is for our readers to judge.

        • I note that Dick has failed to address my HPV comments, instead deflecting to linguistic topics such as “run-and-hide” oxymorons which he hopes will make readers forget that he has proffered no discussion on the topic.

          Perhpas he has no intelligent comments or arguments regarding the topic? Thus far Dick has failed to prove otherwise.

          • alternatively he does not want to be called Dick by a dick.

          • @ Edzard

            I suggest, then, that you refrain from ever referring to Dick.

            Your attempts at Rickles-like insults are humorous, in a spohomoric way. Keep them coming….you are comical without even being funny.

      • I note that Dick has failed to point out errors in my post regarding the HPV vaccine. No surprises here!

        I suppose it’s time for Dick’s Padawan(Prof. Edzard) to come to his rescue with some irrelevant, insulting
        aphorism which he thinks is funny. His shtick is quite predictable.

  • Logos-Bios

    Why is pointing out the nature of VAERS data ‘snarky prattle’?

  • L-B

    Let me help you.

    Provide a citation for your claim;

    Also note that 44 girls have been documented to have died resultant to this “medically necessary” vaccination and that over 15,000 girls have developed deleterious effects, including paralysis, seizures, thrombosis, and others

    • I provided commentary regarding the HPV vaccine. You are welcome to criticize my thoughts or attempt to refute them. I suggest that you search via Google or Yahoo for further clarification of my comments. You might also open your wallet and subscribe to Nexis. However you choose to proceed, please do systematically list and discuss any errors or untruths you believe were in my post. I’ll look forward to reading your thoughts. Be well.

      • ‘Google it yourself’ is not an appropriate response to a request for evidence to support assertions that you, yourself, made.

        I see you have chosen not to show that you understand the data generated by VAERS despite, more than once, being invited to do so.

        Your posts have broken down into simple insults. I’m happy to discuss issues if you contribute something substantive. But not until then.

          • Goodie, goodie….Edzard produced a two-word post in support of his acolyte yet neither he nor his acolytes have substantively rebutted any or all of my HPV concerns. Man, you guys are a real hoot!

        • Continue to deflect if you wish, Simon. Your retreat from discussing the issue is on full display. You still haven’t pointed out errors in my HPV post; I’m not surprised. You are free to discredit my comments and offer substantive arguments yet you don’t. Instead of taking the time to do so, you instead request more of my time to “prove” my comments. Telling….very telling! My post stands as written until you can specifically evince which parts of it you think are spurious.

          Be well, Simon.

  • L-B

    Let’s start from the beginning. This is a blog post about homeopathy. Indeed about a specific report on homeopathy. You have parachuted in with an off-topic and underevidenced tu quoque fallacy on the subject of HPV vaccine for which you have refused to provide supporting sources.

    I have politely offered you the opportunity to recognise that you have misrepresented data from VAERS. Or, more likely perhaps, you have simply drawn your data from sources that have tendentiously misused VAERS data.

    You have shown no inclination to critically reflect upon the statistics that you cited. I have asked you for sources for the specific numbers that you have cited and you have refused to provide them. There’s a huge reservoir of anti-vax nonsense polluting the Internet and I have no interest in playing a guessing game to try to find the individual data that you have quoted.

    There is a general principle in debate that the person presenting data is responsible for backing it up with citations. That is partly a matter of plain good manners and partly because it forces the person making claims only to present data that is capable of being ‘stood up’ with proper evidence.

    At the moment I see no evidence that you understand the problems of drawing causal inferences from VAERS data and I have no expectation that you will want to discuss the data you have presented with any recognition of those flawed inferences. But there may be other people who have stumbled on the page who might be interested in the context of what you are claiming and who might want some more measured commentary and to see how anti-vax activists misuse VAERS data;

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/hpv-safety-faqs.html#A5

    http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/gardasil.asp

    http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/one-stop-shop-science-myth-debunking-gardasil/

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/gardasil/

    Die-hard anti-vaxers may reject the contents of those links simply because of their sources. But a desire to ‘stick it to the man’ and a self-identification with an anti-establishment philosophy doesn’t make confusing correlation with causation logically sound.

    If you want to pursue this topic, pick a datum from your original post. Give its source and show that you have not repeated a fallacious line of reasoning. I previously offered you a couple of your numbers. You could start with one or both of them.

    Also note that 44 girls have been documented to have died resultant to this “medically necessary” vaccination and that over 15,000 girls have developed deleterious effects, including paralysis, seizures, thrombosis, and others

    If you refuse, one must begin to suspect that you know you can’t support your claims, which then begs the question of why you make them.

  • Finally…. a poster(Simon) who actually has taken the time to intelligently challenge my concerns regarding HPV vaccines. Thank you for your comments, Simon.

    First, I am not anti-vaxx. All of my children have had all of their vaccinations(3 daughters); but not HPV for one of them. Disclosure: my oldest daughter was required by her medical school to have the HPV vaccine. I have concerns specifically about HPV vaccines. It’s interesting that post-Gardasil deaths were ascribed(per your link) by the CDC as not necessarily meaning that there was a cause-effect relationship. It’s unfortunate that such an argument hasn’t been accepted by chiro antagonists relative to the claimed morbidity and deaths purportedly caused by cervical SMT, post-manipulation, of course.

    “The vaccine is effective for only 4 of 40 strains of the STD which by and large dies on its own within a couple of years. There is no evidence of a relationship between the quite rare cancers it might prevent and the condition for which a female is vaccinated; there is no evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer whatsoever,” is what I have previously posted. Please see Gardasil (Human Papillomavirus Vaccine) Questions and Answers – Gardasil, June 8, 2006- fda.gov. FDA licensed Gardasil, the first vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer, abnormal and precancerous cervical lesions, abnormal and precancerous vaginal and vulvar lesions and genital warts. Gardasil is a recombinant vaccine and is effective against HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18, and is approved for use in females ages 9-26 years. Note that this information references the original Gardasil, not the newer(<2 yrs. on the market) iteration This is but one datum from my post that you requested I countenance.

    I take it you don't favor my mentioning VAERS numbers in my post. I agree that such data are starting points for further inquiry. However, the current and significant numbers relative to various adverse effects/deaths subsequent to administration of the vaccine justify (IMHO) my inclusion of them when assessing the vaccine's overall value in the context of my original criticisms; and these numbers are now actually greater than those I originally mentioned per reports through 2009. Are the benefits substantial enough to warrant its risks and cost?

    Again, thank you for your comments on this subject, Simon. Be well.

    • Logos-Bios, did you actually *read* Simons post ? This is a thread about homeopathy, therefore nobody answers to your concerns. To put it bluntly, in highschool you would receive an F, reason: You missed the topic.

      • F – minus for not only missing the topic but being totally wrong about the mistaken topic as well.
        I will not take time and space to elaborate on this as the correct information is readily available. Suffice to say that mass vaccination with Gardasil/Cervarix is already resulting in reduction in incidence of related malignancies.

  • L-B

    I did not “Finally…” challenge your concerns. I pointed out the problem of using VAERS data in my first response to you.

    You claimed 44 deaths “resultant” from the vaccine. That’s a claim for direct causality from which you now seem to resile without acknowledging the error.

    You have also, and similarly, still not provided citations for the specific numbers that you quoted.

    VAERS data are, potentially, the starting point for an investigation to see whether reported events are causally linked to a vaccine. No such causal links have been shown despite investigation. In the meantime anti-vax loons cite VAERS data as if causation has been proven and you cited the data in exactly the same manner.

    I will close only by pointing out that when with my first post I offered you the chance to recognise the problems of using VAERS data as proof of causation for adverse events, you said;

    You addressed it remedially at best. Is snarky prattle the best you can offer, Simon?

    It was the best I could offer. You just failed to see that I was correct to offer it.

    I know you meant it as an insult, but you might want to check the definition of ‘remedially’ before you use the word again. I’m very happy to agree that I did address your points ‘remedially’.

  • First, “remedially” was used in the way I wished it to be: it was a polite way to criticize the intelligence of a person or his comments.

    Second, why didn’t you read the fourth paragraph in my most recent post as it discussed my use of VAERS data? If you had read it, it’s unlikely that you would have continued your VAERS discussion, especially since substantively less causality has been evinced relative to cervical SMT/stroke/death, yet the majority of posters in this forum rant about the heath and safety concerns of the procedure.

    Third, why haven’t you discussed the overall thesis of my post? Gardasil may not be worth its cost or its resultant health risks.

    Fourth, you should read my 9/29/16 post before you assume that I want to insult you; I don’t. I do believe that you might be the only poster on this site cogent enough to see the ridiculousness of inductive reasoning based on limited, often prejudiced data about chiropractice. Again, this site’s posters are guilty of this daily….and they are quite jocular in the process.

    Be well.

  • L-B

    I have read everything you have written.

    You started by claiming a causal relationship between HPV vaccines and 44 deaths. You then claim to know the limitations of VAERS data but then still insist that the reported events should be added to the risk side of the risk:benefit calculation for HPV vaccination.

    I’m not very interested in discussing with someone who seems to have Humpty Dumpty’s approach to the meanings of words.

    It’s beginning to look like you are a chiropractor. I wonder if I’m right.

    • Of course Simon deflects, without having addressed satisfactorily the equivocal risk-benefit factors of the HPV vaccine. Furthermore, he seems to have missed the metaphorical nuance in my use of VAERS data relative to the poorly countenanced drivel posted about the dangers of SMT by many of the chiropractic-ignorant posters on this site. Surprisingly, he even missed the metaphorical nature of it after the great big hint I gave him in my last post. It seems as though Simon’s Humpty Dumpty reference applies to Simon…..assuming that ‘ol Humpty had fallen onto his head and had a transiently dysfunctional cerebral cortex at the time he(Simon) was typing his comments.

      I agree with Simon, however, that this conversation has become uninteresting and stale. I become bored in conversations imbued with purposeful(possibly ignorant) failure to understand clearly written comments which happen to not reconcile with one’s(Simon’s)personal biases toward all things vaxx and against calling out his brethren on this site who have erroneously claimed that SMT is by and large dangerous.

      Be well

  • L-B

    Yes, I think you are a chiropractor. You present evidence like one.

    Oh, so now you say you were using VAERS data metaphorically. I think you mean ‘wrongly’.

    I was politely ignoring your comment about the efficacy side of the ratio. Oh, well.

    The number of serotypes in the vaccine needs to be seen in context.

    “All of these vaccines help prevent infection by HPV-16 and HPV-18. These 2 types cause about 70% of all cervical cancers and pre-cancers, as well as many cancers of the anus, penis, vulva, vagina, and throat.

    Gardasil also helps prevent infection by the 2 types of HPV (HPV-6 and HPV-11) that cause most genital warts.

    Gardasil 9 helps prevent infection with the same 4 types of HPV as Gardasil, plus 5 other high risk types: 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58. Together these types cause about 90% of cervical cancers.”

    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/infectiousagents/hpv/hpv-faq

    http://www.hpvvaccine.org.au/the-hpv-vaccine/has-the-program-been-successful.aspx

    You’ve so thoroughly muddled everything else that I have no interest in pursuing this further.

    I’ll close, for completeness, with pointing out that in your defence of back-crackery you’re similarly ignoring one side of the risk:benefit ratio. Chiropractors may rarely kill people, but they don’t provide much benefit, so the ratio isn’t very good compared with therapists who don’t kill their clients. They also pollute the body politic with a host of unproven, disproven and ludicrous ideas.

    Bye bye.

  • L-B finally seems to have left the building.

  • This is an old post but I came across it today and I wanted to reply for anyone like me who may look at this in months to come.
    I 100% believe in the benefits of homeopathy and osteopathy for that matter too. First of all osteopathy CURED my lower back pain FOR GOOD. something I was getting every month since I was a child- gone after just 3 sessions. This is a condition I was given multiple painkillers/ anti-inflammatories for for years. I think we can all agree that overuse of these drugs is no good for anyone long term infact I would get seriously bad stomache pains where the Drs told me I had ruined the lining of my stomache.
    On homeopathy- without experience of homeopathy from an experienced homeopath I have no idea how you can pass judgement. Without question it works- for me. How can you deny someone’s experience of something?! Despite what some believe, not all homeopath users are deluded or crazy or unable to tell if it actually works or not. For me and even my dog it works. Was my dog making up the fact he had kennel cough?! Was he simply eliciting a placebo effect when the cough died down almost immediately with the use of a homeopathic remedy (drosera for anyone interested) and it went completely after 2 days. ( please note I took my dog to the vet not knowing what this horrible choking cough was to be given steroid tablets and a course of antibiotics for 2 weeks at the cost of £90) needless to say I didn’t use the stuff from the vet and the drosera cost £4.99 for a pack of about 200 pills. I used 6 Pills in total. You do the math. Cost effective, SAFE, and it worked…what more do you want?! My friends dog got the same condition again I gave some drosera and the dog responded in the same way. I understand people not understanding how it works (it’s a bit complex for some people’s brains 😉 I certainly wouldn’t have the HPV vaccine as a girl I know got diagnosed with epilepsy a week after the jab. Immediately after the jab she got high fever and collapsed…the collapsing continued that week and a week later epilepsy was diagnosed. It’s just a personal choice to not have it but come on if you knew someone who that had happened to living down your street would you still take your daughter to get it, or maybe think twice?! sure it could have been a coincidence but the HPV jab is the most yellow carded vaccine in existence. This means more serious adverse side effects have been reported in the first 24 hours of vaccination than any other drug. (Also to note as the epilepsy was only diagnosed a week later..this was not put on the yellow card form, only a high fever and collapsing was noted, this shows how serious side effects could be seriously under reported). Vaccinations are a very controversial topic and I believe it’s best to not try to convince anyone of your beliefs on them. All I want to reiterate is that someone’s own rational experience of a medicine cannot be denied. Like I said homeopathy works for me. I want to stress this as I don’t want someone to miss out on a treatment that could benefit them by believing that homeopathy is just quackery. Health and happiness to all. Each to their own also if I’m using homeopathy (which is the only medicine I’v used in the last 2 years since discovering homeopathy, look at all that money I’m saving the nhs on prescriptions or treatment) so what’s the problem?! I believe there’s a place for both medicines. I respect Drs very much and they are over worked let’s take the strain off…eat better, exercise, and for gods sake if an alternative might work for you…try it! Also the people who use homeopathy don’t just keep using it without results?! Who do you think these people are?! We use it be because we get results…duh.
    Part of finding homeopathy is an open mind…but as with any medicine the proof is in the pudding or in the shaken-up sugar pill 😉

    • “I 100% believe in the benefits of homeopathy and osteopathy…” perhaps, but healthcare is mostly about evidence. show us the evidence.

    • Just a quick reply:

      – “This and that happened to a person right after a vaccination” … well, coincidence is *NOT* causation, especially if it is biologically extremely implausible.

      – “You need an experienced homeopath”. Nope. You need a person who knows how to *correctly* interpret a clinical study. Whether the study deals with homeopathy or chinese rain dances is irrelevant or the newest drug in cancer research.

      – “It worked for me”. Well that may be, it may be coincidence we will never know. Aside that medicine is not about coincidence but about reliably repeatable results. In such a case the verdict about homeopaty is very clear and grim: It does not work.

      – “Part of finding homeopathy is an open mind”. If you keep your mind too open, your brain falls out.

    • @Justme

      “How can you deny someone’s experience of something?!” Because someone’s experience may be mistaken.

      “I believe it’s best to not try to convince anyone of your beliefs on them.” Agreed. Beliefs are a lousy way to demonstrate reality: you can always find people with strongly held but opposite beliefs in just about anything.

      “All I want to reiterate is that someone’s own rational experience of a medicine cannot be denied.” All I want to reiterate is that someone’s ‘rational experience’ may be mistaken: humans are singularly prone to fooling themselves.

      Thomas Mohr already pointed out what’s wrong with your ‘rational experience’: you assume that because something happened after a particular event, that event must have caused what happened. This is known as the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy in reasoning. We all tend to fall into the trap of remembering strong associations between experiences (and completely forgetting when there are no associations). This is the basis of most superstitions. But if you have a genuinely open mind, you consider other, rational explanations for such associations.

      Kennel cough is an infectious disease; in most cases it is self-limiting. So it’s hardly surprising if it goes away on its own. If you had given your dog (and the other one) raw rabbit meat and the symptoms abated, would you believe that raw rabbit meat is a cure for kennel cough?

      In more than half of cases of epilepsy the cause remains unknown. Fever is a well established common side effect for HPV vaccine and brief unconsciousness is also an accepted side-effect but uncommon. With your open, rational mind you might like to imagine how people go about establishing common and less common side effects to vaccines to avoid making the post hoc mistake. We need evidence, not subjective experiences, to avoid fooling ourselves.

      In case you imagine I must be stupid to suggest your experiences may be spurious associations, you might take a look at this website, where you will find loads of examples (more than 30,000). From here you might conclude, e.g., that buying an Apple iPhone leads to death from falling down stairs, or that receiving a maths doctorate in the USA leads to suicide by hanging or other form of suffocation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer the following: *

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories