The recent debate about whether doctors should recommend homeopathy, which featured this week in the BMJ has had responses from many about their views.
The debate itself is well worth a read
and equally worth listening to the conversation
, with some good points being made by Dr Peter Fisher regarding the practice of homeopathy and research into its efficacy. As this is written, the responses to the BMJ vote as to whether doctors should recommend homeopathy stands at 54.7% saying yes, and 45.3% saying no.
What do you think? Have you voted and had your say
Often when people visit a homeopath for the first time, they have no idea what to expect, having never had a consultation process like it before.
One of the biggest differences is often that the homeopath takes time to listen to them - often between 60 and 90 minutes. They want to really understand how things are for that person in front of them - how the pain is felt, what emotions are there and how they are experienced, what makes them tick, and lots more! The practitioner gets as much information as they need on the main complaints and the person in general to be able to select a remedy that best fits the description they have been given.
In the short movie here
The Snooks explain what happens when you visit a homeopath. Have a watch
and read here for information on a typical consultation
, more short movies
or have a read of testimonials from patients
Homeopathy is often mis-understood, mis-quoted and may even be dismissed. The 4Homeopathy group, the people who represent the Find a Homeopath site found Wikipedia to have been somewhat dismissive of homeopathy, whilst completely ignoring the growing bank of evidence around this 200 year old form of medicine. As a group 4Homeopathy have created the following statement in response the information around homeopathy as displayed on Wikipedia:
Position Statement – Wikipedia: Homeopathy
Due to the public response of Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, to over 8000 signatures on a petition asking him to allow the Wikipedia page on Homeopathy to be edited in a more neutral and objective way we distance ourselves from the information presented therein. We find Jimmy Wales’ comments about homeopathy and his blatant prejudice against complementary and alternative medicine to be unjustified. Irrespective of Jimmy Wales’ personal opinion, patients have consistently reported that they benefit from homeopathic treatment: patients have a right to make an informed choice based on correct and fair information and Wikipedia is denying patients that right.
The central policy behind Wikipedia is to portray information in a neutral and objective way: the Wikipedia page on Homeopathy is neither neutral nor objective.
We acknowledge that the scientific evidence in support of Homeopathy remains inconclusive, but it is by no means definitively negative and there is in fact an active and growing field of research worldwide. We acknowledge that the mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies is unknown – as it is for some conventional medicines – but this does not preclude their usage in clinical situations. We welcome honest and open-minded debate about Homeopathy and fully support the call for high quality, appropriately designed research studies into the effectiveness of homeopathy as it is practised by both medical and professional homeopaths.
It is our position that patients, prospective patients and other interested parties view the Wikipedia page on homeopathy to be inaccurate and heavily biased: it is not currently a credible source of information.
Specifically, the Wikipedia page on Homeopathy is:
• Inaccurate and wilfully mis-represents the facts about homeopathy.
• Inappropriately derisory in tone.
• Dismissive and disrespectful to scientists and clinicians who research homeopathy in reputable universities worldwide.
• Limited in scope as it does not consider the global position of homeopathy and its successful integration into the training of medical practitioners in many countries.
• Disallows any balanced commentary or dissent from the biased sources cited.
• Selectively omits or misrepresents reputable information that is in support of homeopathy.
• Relies on a disproportionate number of anti-homeopathy sources without considering accurately representing pro-homeopathy sources for balance.
• Fails to present an adequate critique of the scientific debate around Homeopathy and selectively presents negative interpretations of data and theory.
Together, we believe these points highlight a significant failing in the editorial and collaborative community-based spirit of Wikipedia page creation. Until the blatantly prejudicial editorial process behind the Wikipedia page on Homeopathy has been investigated and amended Wikipedia is failing its user base and failing to implement its central policy, in particular ensuring that significant minority positions also be presented.
This position is held by:
Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
British Homeopathic Association
British Association of Homoeopathic Manufacturers
British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons
Faculty of Homeopathy
Friends of the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine
Homeopathy Action Trust
Homeopathic Course Providers Forum
Homeopathic Medical Association
Homeopathy Research Institute
Society of Homeopaths