Distinct from other online resources that simply provide a long list of references to homeopathic research, this eBook provides description, summary, and analysis of this research…plus it teaches you what are some of the most commonly used homeopathic medicines for these common ailments along with other homeopathic medicines to consider, with descriptive summaries of the specific indications for each remedy.

This eBook is the most up-to-date and comprehensive resources to “evidence based homeopathic family medicine.”...’

Also: Dana Ullman, The Logic, Wisdom and Scientific Evidence for the Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza, (Mercola December 26, 2017).

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/26/influenza-homeopathic-treatment.aspx

Story at-a-glance:

1 eBook: Evidence Based Homeopathic Family Medicine by DANA ULLMAN, MPH, CCH

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2017/nov/21/finance-trumps-patients-uk-healthcare-needs-inquiry?CMP=share_btn_tw

‘… Such statistical and health illiteracy, far from being the exception, is actually the norm. The majority of healthcare professionals seem unable to understand medical literature. One study revealed 70% of those on a training programme failed a simple test on their understanding of evidence-based medicine… But the reliability of research findings published in medical journals must also be questioned. In his paper How To Survive the Medical Misinformation Mess, Stanford University professor of medicine and statistics John Ioannidis, an authority on scientific integrity, reveals only 7% of more than 60,000 clinical studies analysed passed criteria of being high quality and clinically relevant to patients…. read more‘

Good medicine: homeopathy

 The Faculty of Homeopathy have also put up a YouTube channel presenting videos of practitioners speaking about why they use homeopathy: www.youtube.com/user/facultyofhomeopathy

 4Homeopathy have also created a series of videos on homeopathy http://www.findahomeopath.org.uk/WhatIsHomeopathy/Movies

Rome 2015 International Homeopathic Conference Report

http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/extraordinary-evidence-homeopathys-best-research/ ‘… There have been hundreds of research studies on homeopathy with positive results. Rather than make you slog through a list of them, we’ll show you the ten most amazing and convincing…’

http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/database-of-positive-homeopathy-research-studies/ ‘… Our homeopathic colleague and friend, Robert Medhurst, has been compiling positive research studies related to homeopathy since last several years. He initially shared a compilation of positive homeopathic research studies with us in 2010 and since December 2013, he has been sharing his findings with the community every month through Hpathy.com…’ http://www.adelaidehillsnaturopath.com.au/about-robert.html

http://www.carstens-stiftung.de/core-hom/login.php Core Hom ‘… The CORE-Hom database has emerged from the need for a publicly available and reliable source of information in the field of homeopathy clinical research. The search grid offers a way to navigate this data, offering the possibility of searching the data through clinical condition or clinical field, name of author and more. The database was designed with the strongest scientific rigor in mind, to offer researchers and the general public a solid foundation from which to assess the quality of homeopathy trials as well the many clinical fields to which they relate. Registration and use of CORE-Hom are free of charge…’

http://ayushportal.nic.in/ Ayush Portal ‘… Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) was established as an autonomous organisation in 1978, under the Dept. of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India. Primarily a research body, CCRH has a multi-dimensional approach to research and its varied research activities include ‘Survey, collection and cultivation of medicinal plants’, ‘Drug standardisation’, ‘Drug proving’, ‘Clinical verification’ and ‘Clinical research’. Besides, CCRH also collaborates with other research bodies for researches and monitors extramural researches…’

Of interest:

*From http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/ ‘… In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf)…’

For a background to The Lancet, please read http://sueyounghistories.com/archives/2008/08/09/dark-beginnings-for-the-lancet/

‘… This website responds to the criticisms of homeopathy made on the Sense About Science website. These criticisms are not valid, and it is unfortunate that a website presenting itself as scientific and sensible can be so unscientific, and so insensible of its subject. The website is criticising nothing but its own mistaken understanding of homeopathy, not homeopathy itself. The same applies to theNightingale Collaboration website. (Some parts of the account of homeopathy given on that website are exactly the same. Is similarity on homeopathy acceptable in small doses?)…’

http://www.senseabouthomeopathy.com/

From http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-31/raipur/46869136_1_handicapped-persons-sensation-homoeopathy: ‘… RAIPUR: If the claims of the Directorate of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH), are to be believed, a pilot project of testing homeopathy drugs on leprosy patients has proven successful in restoring sensation to the affected parts of body.

According to officials, the project started for patients from the districts of Raigarh and Janjgir-Champa, had shown encouraging results with over 80% of them recovering senses to their affected body parts. 

The project, Prevention of Disability in Leprosy Cured Persons through Homeopathy, was started in January 2013 following a MoU signed by the Department of Aayush with the Society for Welfare of Handicapped Persons and State Resource Centre, Chhattisgarh. Under the project, 2,700 such patients- who had undergone multi drug allopathic treatment for leprosy but were suffering from ulcer and lack of sensation in affected body parts- were selected and administered homeopathic drugs for a year to restore sensation. According to project head, Dr Dhruv Chakravarty, Society for Welfare of Handicapped Persons, though the multi-drug allopathic treatment cures leprosy, it often fails to cure the lack of sensation and disability in the affected body parts.

“After the year-long homeopathy course, it was found that more than 80% of the patients had recovered the senses in their affected body parts and their wounds had healed,” said Dr Dhruv. Positive effects of the medicine were found on the nerves, the bones and the immunity of the patients, they said.

Officials said chief minister Raman Singh had been informed about the success of the experiment during a simple ceremony organized at his residence on the eve of World Leprosy Prevention Day on Wednesday. He congratulated the team for successful results of the test.

CM instructed principal secretary of Health Department, MK Raut to discuss about the benefits of this treatment with doctors of Society for Welfare of Handicapped Persons and to explore the possibilities of expanding this project to other parts of the state…’

From http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/Progressive Portuguese Government Shows Belgian Government The Error of Its Reactionary Way  

lei_n._71-2013_tnc.pdf   NB The wording of the new Portuguese law begins at the bottom right of the first page. An approximate English translation is available here: port – eng law.pdf

‘… On the 2 September 2013 the Health Minister of the Portuguese Government, Paulo Macedo, introduced the enacting legislation that lays down the future legal framework for the regulation of the practice homeopathy and 6 other CAM disciplines in Portugal. Lei 71/2013 is the product of a long process extending over a number of years and clearly sets out the requirements in terms of education and regulation for practitioners of CAM disciplines who do not have a conventional medical training but who wish to practise their discipline competently and responsibly. 

The law establishes a framework that will facilitate the regulated growth of 7 new healthcare professions that will make a valuable contribution to the future healthcare of Portugal’s people. Given the current crisis in healthcare precipitated by the failure of whole categories of medicines such as antibiotics, hospital systems under severe strain and the growing burden of chronic disease in an ageing population, these new professions will have an increasingly relevant role to play in helping maintain health and treating ill-health effectively in the future. 

The new Portuguese law stands in direct contrast to the way the Belgian Minister of Public Health, Ms Laurette Onkelinx has acted in this regulatory arena. In 1999 a perfectly good law, known as the Collas Law,  was introduced onto the Belgian statute books aimed at establishing the regulation of homeopathy and three other disciplines by practitioners in a very similar way to that now achieved by the Portuguese Government. Unfortunately, after a long period in limbo, the law has latterly been through a highly questionable consultation process that has resulted in a perversion the original intention of the law.  

After much lobbying by the Belgian homeopathic doctors the Collas law now defines homeopathy as a ‘medical act’ and restricts its practice to doctors, dentists and midwives. As a result homeopaths who currently practise in Belgium will now have to stop practising and non-one else can train in the future to be a homeopath in Belgium.  Clearly, while Portugal promotes the future healthcare of its people, Belgium simply protects a small minority of doctors’ interests…’  

See also http://avilian.co.uk/2013/10/11/undue-industry-influences-that-distort-healthcare-research-strategy-expenditure-and-practice-a-review/

‘… Drug companies, regulatory bodies and research groups are in a deadlock over plans to throw open the vaults of sensitive data gleaned from clinical trials. But just as the battle seems to be coming to a head, a study (B. Wieseler et al. PLoS Medicine 10, e1001526; 2013) has revealed exactly why the restricted information could be so valuable to researchers.

According to the analysis, crucial trial information, such as mortality rates and serious side effects, is missing from much published data. But it can frequently be found in standard non-public documents prepared by industry, known as clinical study reports (CSRs). Missing information uncovered by the study includes details of depression symptoms in trials for anti- depressant drugs, and details of heart attacks and strokes in diabetes-drug trials. “These are very, very important variables and outcomes,” says the study’s lead author, Beate Wieseler, head of the drug-assessment department at the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in Cologne, Germany.

Wieseler strongly supports making all CSRs publicly available. “That is not an option, but a necessity,” she says. “There should be no question that these documents be made available.”

The issue of CSR access is shaping up to be a key sticking point in a major European push to make available more data from clini- cal trials. Drug companies send the reports to the European Union’s European Medicines Agency (EMA) when they apply for licences to sell their products, and the agency has made clear that it would like to release the forms as part of a drive to increase transparency. It is currently drawing up a policy to that effect. Advocates of transparency say that such a policy will allow greater scrutiny of the benefits and harms of drugs, and will help researchers who are working on cures for diseases.

Some companies, including pharmaceuticals giants Roche, based in Basel, Switzerland, and GlaxoSmithKline in London, have already said that they will make their CSRs available to vetted researchers. But industry has pushed back against the wider moves to greater transparency.

In an e-mail to Nature, Richard Bergström, the director-general of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), said that in their current state, CSRs are fundamentally unsuitable for publication. The EFPIA believes that the EMA’s proposed mechanisms for protecting the commercially sensitive and personal details contained in many of these documents are inadequate — the mechanisms require that information be ‘de-identified’ and released only for bona fide research purposes. Such personal data must be properly redacted if these documents are to be made public, says Bergström.

“My members are very concerned about this,” he says. “If the EMA accepts our redactions, we have no problem.” If the agency disregards the EFPIA’s concerns, however, Bergström warns that there may be a series of lawsuits against the EMA.

The EMA has already been taken to court by two biotechnology companies, AbbVie of North Chicago, Illinois, and InterMune of Brisbane, California, to block release of their information under existing rules, whereby any researcher can request information. The cases are ongoing and have severely restricted releases of other requested data.

But advocates of greater transparency are fighting for the EMA to release all data, which they say can easily be anonymized. 

In the study, Wieseler and her team examined the information in 101 CSRs given to them by pharmaceutical companies, and compared it with the information about the same clinical trials that is available in the public domain, found in journal publications and reports in trial registries.

The unpublished sources provided considerably more information on the key findings, or outcomes, relating to the treatments being assessed, including mortality rates and adverse events. In total, the team found 1,080 out- comes relevant to patients. Complete information was available for 86% of these in the CSRs, but for only 39% in the publicly available information. When looking only at outcomes related to harm — such as adverse reactions to a drug — the researchers found that complete information was found for 87% of outcomes in the CSRs, but for only 43% in public records. In some cases, no public information was available at all for a given CSR. But when looking only at cases in which there was both a CSR and a public document, the researchers found similar proportions of missing information in the publicly available records (see ‘Inside drug-company data vaults’). 

“Does it surprise me? No. Is this stuff really important? Yes,” says Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, UK, and co-founder of a group called AllTrials, which campaigns for more clinical-trial transparency. “It’s becoming obvious that what’s portrayed in the journal world does not reflect the whole truth.”

In a public consultation that ended last week, the EMA’s proposals attracted support from other quarters. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the UK drug regulator, says that it welcomes the EMA’s proposals, “and will work to align our position with theirs”.

A joint response from UK biomedical- research funders, including the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council also backs the EMA’s plans. However, the group voices concerns over the sharing of data from individual patients; it says that more safeguards should be put in place to ensure that data are given only to trusted researchers who will not “wrongfully contradict” the results of trials.

The EMA hopes to have its policy in place by the start of next year. Documents without sensitive personal data will be made available for download from its website, whereas those that do contain such data will be available only after anonymization to vetted researchers. Documents with commercially confidential information will be released separately…’