The Indian Supreme Court has ruled this week that homeopathic, ayurvedic and unani practitioners must not prescribe their respective so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) as a cure for Covid-19.
Specifically, the judges noted that, according to the guidelines issued by the Ayush ministry in March, homeopaths are permitted only to prescribe certain homeopathic medicines as “…preventive, prophylactic, symptom management of Covid-19-like illnesses and add-on interventions to the conventional care”, but not as a cure.
“The high court, however, is right in its observation that no medical practitioner can claim that it can cure Covid-19. There is no such claim in other therapy including allopathy. The high court is right in observing that no claim for cure can be made in homeopathy. Homeopathy is contemplated to be used in preventing and mitigating Covid-19 as is reflected by the advisory and guidelines issued by the ministry of Ayush…,” Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah stated.
The Supreme Court passed the ruling while disposing of an appeal filed by the Kerala-based Dr AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homeo Pharmacy that was aggrieved by Kerala High Court’s direction on August 21 for action against homeopaths who claim cure in homeopathy for Covid-19 patients. However, the Supreme Court judgment established that the Ayush ministry guidelines clearly refer to certain homeopathy medicines as preventive, prophalytic and add-on interventions to the conventional therapy. “The above guidelines refer to homeopathy medicines as medicines for prophylaxis, amelioration and mitigation. The guidelines, however, specifically provide that ‘the prescription has to be given only by institutionally qualified practitioners’,” the bench said.
According to the court, homeopathic practitioners are bound by rules from prescribing medicines as cure for Covid-19. “When statutory regulations themselves prohibit advertisement, there is no occasion for homeopathic medical practitioners to advertise that they are competent to cure Covid-19 disease. When the scientists of the entire world are engaged in research to find out proper medicine/vaccine for Covid-19, there is no occasion for making any observation as contained in the paragraph with regard to homeopathic medical practitioners,the judges stated.
_________________________________
Meanwhile, the number of COVID-19 cases in India exceeds 10 million, and that of COVID-related death is almost 150 000. If you ask me, promoters of homeopathic remedies should not be allowed to advertise or sell their placebos pretending they are effective for any purpose in connection with COVID-19 (or any other serious disease for that matter) – not as a curative therapy, not for prevention, and not as a symptomatic treatment either.
23 Responses to The Indian Supreme Court ruled: Homeopathy must not be sold as a cure of Covid-19
Leave a Reply to has Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I don’t get it?
Why ban sales of homeopathic products (HPs) for COVID-19, but allow them for everything else?
Where is the evidence that selling HPs as a cure for COVID cause harm?
(I believe it does, but where is the Indian Government’s evidence?)
Is there a Hindi word for hypocrisy?
A less unbalanced, less obsessively anti-homeopathy account can easily be found on the web.
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sc-homeopathy-practitioners-can-prescribe-immunity-boosters-cant-claim-covid-cure-7106599/
The application was, it seems, to prevent overly-enthusiastic administrators from taking unwarranted action against homeopaths under the Disaster Management Act 2005, for attempting to cure patients presenting with covid-19-like illness (whatever that may be). Such abusive action appears to have been previously and wrongly (in law) sanctioned by the High Court.
The decision re-affirms the law and practice:
This is technically correct, since homeopaths consider no single remedy to be a cure for a specific diagnostically well-defined patho-physiological disease per se – as is inadvertently confirmed by some anti-homeopathy official reports – but rather one should choose a remedy which is well-matched to the patient presenting with such a disease (and which has a recorded history of success).
There is also an older law in India, the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, preventing the use of any unauthorised treatment in epidemics. Homeopathy is authorised and overseen by the AYUSH Ministry, is relatively mainstream, and was specifically endorsed by important founder figures of the country.
One should note that the use of classical homeopathy for prevention of a specific disease can be a hot topic for homeopaths, since proper prescription is meant to be on the basis of how the individual patient reacts. That is, not prophylactic, and not per diagnosed disease.
However, where a particular remedy comes to be used in the majority of cases, it can be used in ‘status epidemicus’ so that it may at least do some good to the majority, then the reduced numbers who fall ill can be treated individually. This approach dates from Hahnemann’s time.
A websearch for [history of homeopathy in epidemics ] may prove enlightening, if disturbing for pseudo-skeptics (who will naturally continue to dispute facts if they don’t fit the propaganda message).
Also, anyone with a genuine interest might investigate the success of of homeopathy in the last truly dangerous pandemic, where homeopaths were saving 99% of their patients while ‘conventionals’ were losing about one in three.
[see e.g. http://homeopathy.ca/debates_2013-03-22Q1-2ns.shtml ]
“A websearch for [history of homeopathy in epidemics ] may prove enlightening, if disturbing for pseudo-skeptics (who will naturally continue to dispute facts if they don’t fit the propaganda message).”
Oh Will! one needs to be bar of any critical thinking and unable to learn and progress to write this.
https://edzardernst.com/2017/02/homeopaths-love-it-the-epidemiological-evidence-suggesting-that-homeopathy-works/
That’s great. Just one teeny tiny pedantic point of order: where’s your evidence that homeopathy is effective at preventing COVID infection and/or boosting the immune system? I’m sure you have it to hand and were just about to post it, but I thought it best to mention it before you get too sauced on 100-proof diluent, this being Christmas and all.
Uh-huh. Just one more teeny tiny pedantic point of order: what conditions were the homeopaths’ patients in when they arrived (presumably under their own ambulatory power) compared to the patients who arrived at those awful allopathic hospitals, quite possibly in the back of an ambulance?
I mean, not to be cynical or anything, but might it be possible that those with a foot in death’s door might head for Accident and Emergency while those who just need their boo-boo kissed better would choose the prancing bottled-water man? In which case your comparative death tolls may simply be down to the starting differences between these two self-selecting groups; no need to violate every law of physics and chemistry to explain it.
As is typical…Edzard spins any news story and scientific research into a negative light. THIS court decision ALLOWS homeopathic physicians to treat Covid-19 patients. We do NOT have to advertise doing such…homeopaths have successfully treated widespread epidemics since the 19th century….and we don’t need to advertise…further, dozens of surveys consistenly find that the most predictive feature of people who seek homeopathic treatment is “increased advanced education.”
Heck, homeopathy became most famous to sharply reducing the mortality rate throughout Europe and the USA at that time, including much more serious epidemics such as cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, and others (Haller J. The History of American Homeopathy: The Academic Years (1820-1935) (Chapter 4). New York: Pharmaceutical Products Press, 2005.)
https://edzardernst.com/2017/02/homeopaths-love-it-the-epidemiological-evidence-suggesting-that-homeopathy-works/
As is typical…Dana spins like a tumble drier. The court decision does not “allow” homeopaths to treat COVID patients, since homeopaths weren’t disallowed from treating them in the first place. (They should be, on threat of having their fingers broken, but society allows its noisy religions extraordinary leeway lest all their own BS be found wanting too.) All the court has done is place a modest limit on homeopaths’ ability to voice their grandiose delusions, so they can no longer declare their miracle ability to cure.
Of course, I’m sure Dana has robust evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy in preventive, prophylactic, symptom management of Covid-19-like illnesses and is just about to present it for our edification and amusement; meanwhile, let’s give thanks to conventional care for continuing to do all the actual hard work while Dana tries to steal all their credit.
A pattern that can much more easily be explained by the neurotic-well self-selecting the pompous bottle-water peddler at the first sign of the sniffles, while those who are already halfway through death’s door from deadly diseases are wheeled to the nearest real hospital to sink or swim with the limited treatments available then.
Alas, the only randomizations Dana performs is when selecting which of his dismal post-hoc rationalizations to roll out today. I’m sure if Dana opened one of these his miraculous cure rates would evaporate faster than the diluent for a belladonna teether; not that Dana would ever admit it, and damn the corpses rolling out his door: they just didn’t believe hard enough.
Interesting that you used to advertise a China nosode 200c that came with homeoprophylaxis instructions.
The FDA took action against Kari Kindem for offering similar and making more claims https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/alternative-health-experts-llc-dba-immunization-alternatives-605884-04062020
211 studies and counting, 147 peer reviewed, 100% showing benefits of HCQ in early stages of CoVid19
https://c19study.com/
How the false hydrochloroquine narrative was created
https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/how-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative.html
Senate hearing testimony about studies showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Tq8SXOBy-4w&feature=youtu.be
The false narrative that there is no conventional treatment for Covid19 can be retired.
Homeopaths have documented their cures of Covid19 around the world. Fortunately people dont listen to Supreme Courts or the “authorities”. They listen to their neighbors and friends. They also hear that the doctor who treated Trump and cured him in three days was an outspoken advocate of HCQ.
https://thehighwire.com/videos/exclusive-did-president-trump-use-hcq-to-beat-covid/
The rest of the world is using HCQ. Only the CDC continues to insist the only solution is a vaccine, a solution they are heavily invested in.
“The rest of the World is using HCQ”
No, Roger. It isn’t.
We know that, as a homeopath, you are utterly unable to understand science or evidence and believe that your whims will alter fact to support your delusions.
A big study. In The Lancet. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(20)30390-8/fulltext
HCQ is, like homeopathy, of no value in the treatment of COVID-19. Unlike homeopathy, HCQ is of use in the treatment of other diseases.
Run along now, Roger.
@Roger
Amen to that Roger
The courts, even the highest courts are no more for the people than the crooked politicians (from all parties) . Nor than the liberal biased and lying media, The evil Pharma Industry, the CDC FDA WHO.
I have spoken to peoples of different lands across the globe. Many many believe in the conspiracy of the globalist (world elite) to use the pandemic to take control of the countries of the world and usher in a new order that would not otherwise be possible. Many around the globe recognize this and call it our for what it is….. TYRANNY !
I have witnessed the benefits of Ivermectin MANY times over…. to change a long suffering patient to a recovering patient. Don’t believe the lies !
The rest of the world is not using HCQ.
And what has HCQ got to do with homeopathy anyway?
I;ve just been reading this interesting article on the BBC website, by a “disinformation reporter”, looking at the real-world harm of conspiracy theories and false information online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-55355911
#ParanoidNarcissism
Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not all out to get you……
I’ll stick to neuroses, thank you.
I support has’s post at 16:29 on 24 December:
The trope of homeopathic remedies being of use in pandemics has been around since Hahnemann.
A number of homeopaths still claim that in London, patients treated at the Homeopathic Hospital during the 1854 cholera pandemic did better than those treated at the Middlesex Hospital – in central London, just north of Soho where the epidemic started at the Broad Street Pump. Those desperate folk who could get there were treated by the well-known statistician, Miss Florence Nightingale.
The less afflicted and fitter patients were more able to flee east – and many were treated at the LHH. Hardly surprising they ‘did better’. Hardly surprising that homeopaths who do not understand epidemiology, or statistics, or science, would come to believe their remedies played a significant part. Hardly surprising they would continue with their un-evidenced claims. And given human nature and the difficulties in dealing with the spectrum of OCD, hardly surprising some would be unable to move on. Sigh.
Ask who is the single greatest contributor to modern medicine, and I’m sure you’ll get many answers: Pasteur, Morton, Halsted, Florey, Barnard, and so on. But to me there’s no question: it’s Nightingale, for she invented the mathematical system that enables us to test all our other assumptions to determine without bias if they truly hold up, or are merely tricks of vanity or light.
The tragedy of Hahnemman is that he genuinely was onto something: his nostrums were more effective than the conventional medicine of his day. Had he followed through his initial observations with a more skeptical eye, unafraid to test himself first, he would have discovered the true reason for his early success: mainstream medicine was actively harmful. And he could have proved it too, inventing the placebo trial.
In short, Hahnemman could have destroyed 2000 years of murderous Galenic fraud overnight and been medical hero to us all.
Alas—and if his acolytes today are any demonstrator of character—Hahnemman was an arrogant and incurious man, content to ascribe his results to his own personal greatness in inventing magical nonsense, instead of digging just that little bit further to see where that hole really leads. That is how incredibly easy it is to go from Hero to Zero in medicine, or any other pursuit for that matter: a simple inability to ask “Could I be wrong?”; without which the next question cannot follow: “But could I be wrong for a really good reason?”
Thus it fell to all the others to finally blow away Galen and progress mainstream medicine to where it is today, and so receive the credit that is rightfully theirs. (Although Nightingale was still robbed.) Whereas homeopathy has progressed not one inch from its original smug, self-satisfied, self delusion—an embarrassingly durable testament to the infinite depth of human narcissism; nothing more.
..
TL;DR: Nightingale wins, by knockout.
—
‘The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That’s funny…”’—Isaac Asimov
In primary school in the still-sexist sixties we learned about Florence Nightingale as ‘the lady with the lamp’. I don’t recall the story being anything about the sheer power of that women, and her ability as a mathematician and statistician.
(Parenthetically, Marie Curie was for years in textbooks relegated to a place behind her husband Henri in discussing the discovery of Radium. Last night, though, I watched professor Jim AlKhalili’s super documentary, Atom, [on Amazon Prime] and was pleased to see Marie Curie among those present at the Copenhagen physicists conference, the rest all male, where the debate between Shrodinger and Heisenberg was resolved. But I digress, as Ronnie Corbett used to say….).
Only in later years did I learn of Nightingale’s determined statistical work and its huge significance to medicine. A few years ago there was an exhibtion display in The British Library, and her original pie chart diagrams, done in coloured inks, were on display. She was, I think, the first female member of the Royal Statistical Society.
There is a sound recording of Florence Nightingale from 1890. She does not sound like a meek, shrinking violet. https://youtu.be/ax3B4gRQNU4
That’s a great quote from Isaac Asimov!
It’s such an interesting and sad thought, that Hahnemann started out well, but went astray.
Even homeopathic physician Dr Ruthven Mitchell in the 1970s book Homeopathy, acknowledges that increasing age saw Hahnemann increasingly mired in arrogance and dogmatism.
Urgh. Such a loathesome label. No-one would dare reduce Newton to “the man with the apple”, but they’re all happy to damn the “little lady” with such faint praise just to keep her in her place. Yet I’m quite sure that woman could’ve roundhouse-kicked any physician of her day into the middle of next week and not even broken a sweat.
Okay, so I previously said “invented”, which overstated it a bit as early statistics goes back to the 17th century, but she was one of the pioneers in its development and (AFAIK) first using statistical math to analyze, understand, and solve real-world medical problems, like why do so many wounded soldiers die while under medical care and what measures will/won’t reduce that. (How many male physicians of the time could you imagine asking such questions, never mind doing all the grinding leg-work to answer them? I’ve no doubt Hahnemman’s arrogance and dogmatism was in prime company there.)
And then there’s all the other stuff she did: created nursing as a skilled educated modern profession, trained its nurses, built hospitals, succeeded where Semmelweis failed in instituting hygenic disease-control practices and public sanitation, wrote copiously, pushed political reform, advanced the cause of women and damn all the social mores that wanted them enfeebled and useless, and took zero sh-t from anyone in general.
Yes!