RE DOES HOMEOPATHY REALLY HELP CURE M.S

[seeva]

HI FRIENDS
please read this news you find homeopathy treatment can cure m.s
http://abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/1350/
Please read bhskaran's post he mentions an a indian DR. Ramakrishnan from channai india has been treating MS patients in india and Europe/USAand seems to have met with some success
I contacted the DR. regarding my SPMS he reply that he can cure but I have to go his clinc in CHENNAI, LONDON OR USA OR SINGAPORE. I am from australia so Iam going to see him in MAYin SINGAPORE. His web site drramakrishnan.com any one knows abut this DR. please reply
regards
seeva

[CureOrBust]

HI FRIENDS
please read this news you find homeopathy treatment can cure m.s
http://abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/1350/
Please read bhskaran's post he mentions an a indian DR. Ramakrishnan from channai india has been treating MS patients in india and Europe/USAand seems to have met with some success
I contacted the DR. regarding my SPMS he reply that he can cure but I have to go his clinc in CHENNAI, LONDON OR USA OR SINGAPORE. I am from australia so Iam going to see him in MAYin SINGAPORE. His web site drramakrishnan.com any one knows abut this DR. please reply
regards
seeva

If he REALLY was interested in helping you and not simply collecting your money, he could inform a local practitioner of his "treatment". But that would intercept his income stream.

[vesta]

Hello Seeva:

I have had a positive experience with Classical homeopathy, that is to say use of a "constitutional" single remedy corresponding to the totality of one's symptoms. (Called Uniciste in France, the method created by Hahnemann.) An illness or crisis such as a bladder infection may call for an additional remedy. When the remedy is correct, the mood changes immediately, what seemed impossible to do becomes possible. In my opinion it works for MS by relaxing the body, thus allowing free flow of fluids throughout the central nervous system (blood, cerebrospinal fluid, lymphatic and glymphatic). It also should improve one's overall health.
At first signs of any virus (sore throat cold symptoms or stomach flu etc) I also use the remedy Oscillococcinum by Boiron readily available in a health food store and it will stop the virus in its tracks if taken at first symptoms, or at the very least attenuate its effects. Since I've begun using Oscillococcinum I've avoided many flus which as we all know tense up the muscles which trigger MS symptoms (more obstructed CNS fluids.)

I needed detoxification, optimal nutrition, suppléments and energy thérapies (acupuncture, osteopathy, shiatsu massage ayurvedic massage etc) to heal. A good Homeopath may be able to optimize your health which alone may "cure" the MS, but any competent Homeopath may be able to help you (if you can find one - not always easy and I've heard that Australia wants to ban homeopathy???)

A proper diagnosis requires a long, personalized interview and contrary to CureorBust's cynical comment, a Homeopath can't inform a local practitioner of his "treatment". We can all have the same disease which doesn't mean we will have the same remedy. It isn't easy finding a good Homeopath and there is much prejudice and misunderstanding about it.

Best regards, Vesta

[CureOrBust]

A proper diagnosis requires a long, personalized interview and contrary to CureorBust's cynical comment, a Homeopath can't inform a local practitioner of his "treatment".

The same would also imply that they can not teach the treatment to the following generation of practitioners, and therefore, would mean the knowledge dies with that particular homeopath. The technique used by the practitioner above of saying that he and only he can supply the treatment... if it quacks like a duck...

.. there is much prejudice and misunderstanding about it.

The "prejudice" is due to the misunderstanding of the science behind it. I have spoken to people who swear by the treatment, but as soon as you ask any questions regarding the science, their misunderstanding is what becomes most evident. If it worked, it would be easy to prove that it worked, and there just is no scientifically verifiable proof as such, and it has been tested MANY times.

[vesta]

Hello CureOrBust:

I quite agree that no one should say that only HE has a cure, that simply isn't true. However, you don't understand Homeopathy, it isn't up to one practitioner to teach the method to others. There are over 2,000 remedies (I think) and it requires training. Up until the arrival of antibiotics homeopathy was the preferred treatment in the USA. In fact the AMA was founded by allopaths in the 19th century in response to the known success of homeopathy. The AMA set about destroying Homeopathic Medical Schools so much knowledge and training was lost. The Japanese have done scientific research demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy (for psoriasis I think) Drug companies won't be interested becaused a dose of remedy costs 2.50 euros in France. Also, the research has to be geared to the technique. I can describe an interesting experience. My California homeopath finally persuaded me to try a remedy for a bladder infection. He asked for all the symtoms of that particular infection. I consented, prepared to suffer for days until I finally gave up if the remedy didn't work. I took the remedy in the morning and by evening the infection was gone. I couldn't believe it. Years later another bladder infection. I confirmed it using a urinalysis test strip, the leukocytes and Nitrites were positive for infection. I took the remedy (it was Causticum in that case) and by the next day the symptoms were gone. Out of curiosity I tried the test strips again and the results were NEGATIVE. Now that is one experiment one could try, but probably it would be considered unethical to let the infection go untreated for the test group. Also, it must be understood that each patient may need a different remedy depending on the symptoms, so you really need a competent homeopath to prescribe the remedy. This contradicts the germ theory of disease. The idea is that we have germs everywhere and the body is "attacked" by them when the défenses are down, the remedy reinforces these défenses. Last summer I developed Shingles and believe me I took the Valocyclovir (sp?) to treat it, I didn't risk a homeopathic treatment. But I have used homeopathy since to recover strength and avoid - treat - bladder infections. You use the loaded word quackery. I believe one day the current treatment for MS by neurologists will be regarded as quakery. At least they no longer perform lobotomies.

Regards, Vesta

[CureOrBust]

I quite agree that no one should say that only HE has a cure, that simply isn't true. However, you don't understand Homeopathy,

actually I do understand the "science" behind Homeopathy, which is actually a belief, and not a science of Homeopathy

Up until the arrival of antibiotics homeopathy was the preferred treatment in the USA.

at one point, mercury was also previously used for longevity, until we learned better.

The Japanese have done scientific research demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy

Please direct me to the recently published in respected medical journals, the large, double blinded studies. I have done searches in google scholar, and all the links in the first page have been published in the Homeopathy specific publication.

You use the loaded word quackery. I believe one day the current treatment for MS by neurologists will be regarded as quakery.

I never used the word quackery. My point was that he sounds like (ie quacks like) someone attempting to get money by implying only he has the product for sale. It is a healing system based on belief, and not in science. The "practitioner" referenced by seva above appears to be more interested in attaining his fees than healing. Of course today's treatments will appear as rubbish compared to the future treatments, however, homeopathy is also a treatment from the past.

[vesta]

Dear CureorBust :
Here are some studies published by PubMed which I believe to be a respectable source.. While the evidence is not overwhelmingly favorable to Homeopathy, there is good reason to believe its effects are positive. Mainly the trial sizes are inadequate. If you have a child with puss oozing out of his ear and antibiotics are entirely ineffective to treat it, find a good homeopath and the infection will disappear. Then you won’t care what cureorbust has to say about homeopathy.
In any case, suit yourself. We would have more and better practitioners of homeopathy if it weren’t for the the allopaths' self interested (read money) opposition.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11795090 overview
skin disease
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544862
acute ear infection
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224838
upper respiratory tract infections
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338192

Best regards, Vesta

[CureOrBust]

Here are some studies published by PubMed which I believe to be a respectable source..

Actually they are not published in respected scientific journals or do not use the double blinded placebo controlled methods.

The first is published by Authors from "Continuum Center for Health and Healing" and in a publication I know nothing about. Looking at the citations for the article, it has not been referenced by what would sound to me as hard science publications.

The second is published in "Complement Ther Med" ie a publication specifically searching for effects in the field. ie its in their interest (financially) for it to be true. And the results appear to be self reported not double blind.

The third states "but these differences were not statistically significant"

It as an open label, NOT double blinded. A very serious failure for any treatment with any hint of belief based healing., This last one is also published in "Complement Ther Med"

Just because something is found in PubMed, does not make it scientifically valid.

[NHE]

Homeopathy is based on the belief that diluting a substance increases it's potency as a therapeutic agent. This belief became popular at a time before people understood the atomic nature of matter. Some of the homeopathic dilutions are quite high and effectively dilute a substance out of existence to the point where it is no longer statistically likely to be found in the final solution.

Here are some thoughts on homeopathic dilutions that put them in perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions

Analogies

Critics and advocates of homeopathy alike commonly attempt to illustrate the dilutions involved in homeopathy with analogies. The high dilutions characteristically used are often considered to be the most controversial and implausible aspect of homeopathy.

A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum. As there are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10^320 more atoms to simply have one molecule in the final substance.[12]

Another illustration of dilutions used in common homeopathic preparations involves comparing a homeopathic dilution to dissolving the therapeutic substance in a swimming pool.[13][14] There are on the order of 10^32 molecules of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool and if such a pool were filled with a 15C homeopathic preparation, to have a 63% chance of consuming at least one molecule of the original substance, one would need to swallow 1% of the volume of such a pool, or roughly 25 metric tons of water.

[vesta]

Greetings:

From a materialistic point of you it would seem implausible that the greater the dilution the more powerful the remedy, but that is the case. It is also true that homeopathic remedies antidote easily, coffee and mint are said to antidote it (not so for my husband, he still drinks coffee while on it.) Also if someone is taking a heavy duty medication the homeopathy might not work. Since you sincerely believe the sugar pellets are no more than sugar, try the Oscillococcinum at the first signs of a sore throat, pour them Under your tongue and let them melt (don't touch the pellets). After you are saved from a sore throat or cold or flu a few time you will begin to appreciate the efficacy of that remedy. (It is taken up to 2 times a day for 3 days. Even if the cold "gets" you it will be much attenuated. Remember, once the illness is well installed this remedy won't work, in that case you would need a homeopath's prescription which parallels the specific symptoms.) And then you might look into the subject in greater depth and appreciate the therapy. Anyway, if they are just harmless sugar pellets, why not give Oscillococcinum a try, keep them readily handy since time is of the essence, and see for yourself.

Best regards, Vesta

[vesta]

Greetings:

From a materialistic point of you it would seem implausible that the greater the dilution the more powerful the remedy, but that is the case. It is also true that homeopathic remedies antidote easily, coffee and mint are said to antidote it (not so for my husband, he still drinks coffee while on it.) Also if someone is taking a heavy duty medication the homeopathy might not work. Since you sincerely believe the sugar pellets are no more than sugar, try the Oscillococcinum at the first signs of a sore throat, pour them Under your tongue and let them melt (don't touch the pellets). After you are saved from a sore throat or cold or flu a few time you will begin to appreciate the efficacy of that remedy. (It is taken up to 2 times a day for 3 days. Even if the cold "gets" you it will be much attenuated. Remember, once the illness is well installed this remedy won't work, in that case you would need a homeopath's prescription which parallels the specific symptoms.) And then you might look into the subject in greater depth and appreciate the therapy. Anyway, if they are just harmless sugar pellets, why not give Oscillococcinum a try, keep them readily handy since time is of the essence, and see for yourself.

Best regards, Vesta

Hello Seeva:

I hope you will not be discouraged by the above discussion to consult the Homeopath. One issue I would bring up with him is the assurance that you can contact him in an emergency and he will advise you. It's of little use to be told to wait for an appointment if you have an "attack", bladder infection etc. My excellent homeopath in California had a Policy patients could call at 1 p.m. for advice. We paid him for the time of the call much as a lawyer is paid in incréments of time.

I take back part of what I wrote above. Molécules are composed of atoms which are composed of subatomic particles etc. To say the remedy is diluted so not one molecule remains says nothing of what may remain on an energy level. I'm not going to waste my time studying the issue further. (Nuclear physics would probably be looked upon as quackery if they hadn't developed a powerful weapon of war, the atomic bomb.) Standard MS treatment does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, even if it was presumably developed "scientifically".

See the following quotes previously published on my site MS Cure Enigmas.net (in which I also quote a Thisisms.com discussion.)
It may well be that a good Homeopath can succeed where current DMD treatment can't.

Best regards, Vesta

PS I don't know why the quote function doesn't work for the following quote. I'm having problems with my computer. Sorry

[/quote][/quote]The first big breach in the drug fallacy came with a scientific study conducted by a University of British Columbia research team who published their paper in the JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) in July 2012.

Their conclusion? Quoted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/healt ... html?_r=3&>

“ Using a well-validated scale, they found that those who took interferon beta were no less likely to suffer long-term disability than those who took none.” “But after controlling for sex, age at onset, disease duration, relapse rate and other factors, they could find no association between taking interferon beta and any reduction in progression to disability. Relapses and brain lesions do not, apparently, drive disability, Dr. Tremlett said.”


Yes, the drugs did reduce relapses and MRI lesions which implies that the brain lesions are not in themselves adequate indicators of MS brain damage. If MRI’s are used to “monitor” effectiveness of MS drugs, they aren’t monitoring MS progression or effective treatment. This tends to discredit the entire treatment protocol over the past 25 years.

Then Dr. George Ebers published his study of MS drug outcomes over the past 25 years.

<

On Thisisms.com (Cheerleader) Joan Beal comments:
“Please notice that Ebers shows that relapses have no bearing on time to reach SPMS or the 6,8 and 10 markers on EDSS.
And they do not prevent disability....there's no science behind that marketing claim.
The real biomarker is not white matter lesions, it's gray matter atrophy--that's the one thing tied to disability and MS progression.
Keep your gray matter healthy, your mitochondria healthy, keep moving—“

Dr Michael Flanagan (upright doc) also of Thisisms.com comments:

“The presentation was fast paced but interesting and enlightening...it questions the efficacy of many drugs which do nothing to change the long-term progress or outcome of the condition. It is far better to do nothing than to make someone sick while trying to cure their condition.

As far as the definition of MS is concerned, basically it's a neurodegenerative condition associated with remissions and exacerbations and somewhat characteristic signs and symptoms. The signs and symptoms were previously attributed to demyelination but we know now that they aren't necessarily related. Neurological function degenerates regardless of the state of demyelination. This indicates that there are other degenerative processes at work as well."


centenarian100 commented (Dec 23, 2013) that the statistical analysis reveals that the drugs may delay decline from RRMS to SPMS which means some MSers can live better, longer. But maybe we can do much better than that.

Standard MS therapy: <http://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/1115/p1935.html‎>
Peter A. Calabresi, M.D. Nov 15, 2004 writes about standard MS therapy on the site American Family Physician “Diagnosis and Management of Multiple Sclerosis”. At the time 5 DMD’s had been approved by the FDA. (Little has changed since 2004 except for the increased choice including monoclonal antibodies.) Presumably the FDA approved these treatments based on – SCIENCE - a clinically approved double blind protocol (meaning neither the Doctor nor the patient know what is prescribed.) The MRI with gadolinium contrast is used to monitor lesions (at least 9) both in diagnosing MS and monitoring disease progression (and treatment effectiveness, including drug trials.)

THE FALLACY
It appears that these treatments and the drug trials that approved them are based on a FALLACY, the theory that white matter lesions (plaques) accurately define MS. What if, as Joan Beal suggest, grey matter is far more important in the disease progression. What if all this FDA approved science is founded on a chimera?

Finally, it has been known since the introduction of the MRI that the images produced don’t reveal anything about the nature or degree of handicap in MS. The Neurologist uses the MRI to monitor lesions which determine treatment protocol. It is understood that the drugs work only for the RelapseRemissionMS, that is to say to control lesions and that once the patient arrives at the progressive stage, drugs are no longer effective. I repeat - "Relapses and brain lesions do not, apparently, drive disability, Dr. Tremlett said."


What can I conclude from the discussion thus far? That DMD's (MS drugs) may reduce lesion damage to white matter. However, they apparently don't stop brain degeneration in general. Thus, if one feels safer taking DMD's, one must still do everything to protect the brain in general (including grey matter) through optimal nutrition, detoxification and nutritional suppléments. I would avoid drugs I can't safely stop taking. (Tysabri comes to mind.)

And I definitely focus on enhancing blood/cerebrospinal fluid circulation in the central nervous system in order to stop the blood reflux (CCSVI). And, perhaps, doing all that one can forego the drugs altogethe[/quote][/quote]


Previously published on http://www.thisisms.com/ and my site http://www.mscureenigmas.net/

[ArthurJ]

Homeopathy - Con or Cure, The Enemies of Reason with Richard Dawkins


You won't believe what happens when Science Babe swallows 50 homeopathic sleeping pills.


That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E

[vesta]

Homeopathy - Con or Cure, The Enemies of Reason with Richard Dawkins


You won't believe what happens when Science Babe swallows 50 homeopathic sleeping pills.


That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E

No serious well funded studies have been done on homeopathy, certainly not a 20 year study suggested as the norm for drug development. For one thing there is no money to be derived by it, and one can't "patent" (monopolize) a homeopathic remedy, and the remedies are very inexpensive. (The sleeping pill example is a very poor one, it doesn't treat individually) The last you tube video simply mocks homeopathy. I don't understand why opponents get on their high horse and try to discredit an effective, inexpensive, non toxic therapy. When the day comes that bacteria develop to the point of being entirely drug resistant (the French predict this eventuality by 2050) you better hope there are competent homeopaths to deal with the situation.

Best regards, Vesta

[ArthurJ]

No serious well funded studies have been done on homeopathy, certainly not a 20 year study suggested as the norm for drug development. For one thing there is no money to be derived by it, and one can't "patent" (monopolize) a homeopathic remedy, and the remedies are very inexpensive.

Oh, the placebo effect is very real and it has already been well studied.

When the day comes that bacteria develop to the point of being entirely drug resistant (the French predict this eventuality by 2050) you better hope there are competent homeopaths to deal with the situation.

I disagree. Naturopaths may be able to help, but homeopaths don't have a chance. For example, if you have to go in for surgery, ask yourself if you want the homeopathic anesthesia diluted by 30C (equal to a 1 x 10^60 dilution) or do you want the real stuff?

[vesta]

Consider that the placebo effect may work for MANY medications, for example beta interferon turned out to ineffective to prevent disability which didn't prevent it being prescribed and people believing it would work. What we want is the best treatment with the least negative side effects and homeopathy works well for many things. I hope Seeva doesn't listen to you. (Apparently Acupuncture is used successfully as an anesthesia. How can that be without drugs? ) In my opinion you are operating on a misinformed bias.