Radek Soucek - Ezy Homeopathy

Homeopathic conference 2014 in Hobart just started:)

No matter how well educated you are, if you begin an investigation with a position of prejudice, then your eyes will fall upon that evidence which supports your contention. We expect more from our top medical research body in Australia, the NHMRC, yet unfortunately this is what happened. The organisation began with a position paper which stated that it is unethical to practise homeopathy because there is no good evidence to support it, then they went about looking into the evidence. This happens even if you do not consciously ‘cherry pick’ the available evidence which supports your point of view. If you begin with prejudice, you finish with prejudice.

Water fluoridation - will it finally cease to be considered medical intervention, rather than continuous poisoning of our bodies?

http://time.com/2863227/ending-the-war-on -fat/

Homeopathic medicine is used in France by a third of the French population. Almost all French pharmacies dispense it with its use covered by state social security. In 2004, 62% of French mothers used homeopathic medicines in the previous 12 months. A survey of French pharmacists in 2004 found that 94.5 per cent. reported advising pregnant women to use homeopathic medicines. 70% of French doctors are receptive to homeopathy and consider it effective and at least 25,000 of them prescribe homeopathic medicines for their patients.

Interesting article...

In a survey of 500 patients at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, 72% reported being able to stop or reduce their conventional medication.

In 1847, the American Medical Association published a code of ethics which stated that physicians would lose their membership if they consulted with a homeopath. At an AMA meeting, Dr. J.N. McCormack of Kentucky, who was the driving force behind the 1903 reorganisation of the AMA, said: ‘We must admit that we never fought the homeopath on matters of principle. We fought him because he came into the community and got the business.’

At the end of August 2005 the Lancet looked at eight inconclusive trials out of 110, of which 102 were positive. “The meta-analysis at the centre of the controversy is based on 110 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and 110 clinical trials of allopathy (conventional medicine), which are said to be matched. These were reduced to 21 trials of homeopathy and 9 of conventional medicine of ‘higher quality’ and further reduced to 8 and 6 trials, respectively, which were ‘larger, higher quality’. The final analysis which concluded that ‘the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects’ was based on just the eight ‘larger, higher quality’ clinical trials of homeopathy. The Lancet’s press release did not mention this, instead giving the impression that the conclusions were based on all 110 trials.”