Thrive Naturopathic - Arlington

Evidence-Based Medicine? (Part 3)

By Christopher Johnson, ND

Thrive Naturopathic

www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

Lack of evidence in conventional medicine

“The weakness of the scientific evidence underlying medical practice is one of the causes of the wide variations that are well recognized in medical practice”

                        - Richard Smith, Former Editor BMJ

In the previous 2 segments of this series on evidence-based medicine, I demonstrated how research funded by medical industries (primarily the pharmaceutical industry) is systematically biased and corrupt and how that information is then disseminated to doctors and the public through medical journals and the mainstream media. The result of this situation is that much of the evidence upon which the practice of medicine is based is unreliable.

In this section I will show that apart from the problem of data being unreliable, much of medical practice is not based on any data at all.

The journal Clinical Evidence is a BMJ-owned journal dedicated to assessing the evidence base of medical therapies. It is run by a group of veteran medical journal editors and has conducted the most thorough evaluation to date of this issue, utilizing the expert judgment of medical experts and researchers from across the globe. Over 500 peer reviewers and 500 authors regularly contribute to this effort. No other group comes anywhere to close to this degree of thoroughness and breadth in examining the available data.

So far the group has reviewed the evidence base of 2,500 medical treatments. It found that 49% of these medical therapies have no evidence of either efficacy or safety. Another 8% of therapies have solid evidence of either being harmful or not likely to be beneficial. And an additional 8% have trade offs between harms and benefits.

That leaves only 35% of medical therapies which have evidence of being either beneficial or likely to be beneficial. Of this fraction, only 12% are known to be beneficial; the other 23% ‘likely to be beneficial’.

Of this 35%, how much of the evidence is actually fraudulent, fabricated, or otherwise misleading? (as we know occurs regularly with industry-funded research) Even veteran medical journal editors and professionals have no way of knowing if findings were falsified – they have to take the numbers at face value.

And how much evidence of treatments being harmful was withheld by drug companies and never published? (again, a common practice which has been well-documented)

Considering these questions, the numbers are likely to be even worse – with less evidence of benefit and more evidence of harm.

David Eddy is a professor of health policy and management at Duke University. He began his career as a cardiothoracic surgeon at Stanford but became concerned with what he saw as a lack of evidence base in medical practices. To explore this idea he chose a specific condition – glaucoma – and set about combing the medical literature for evidence of the procedures and medications used to treat it. He reviewed the entire body of medical literature concerning glaucoma all the way back to 1906 and could not find a single randomized controlled trial which investigated the standard treatments. Yet there were numerous mentions in medical journals and textbooks about the efficacy of the treatments – all based on hearsay and speculation.

Professor Eddy now advises medical ‘consensus’ groups. Consensus groups are panels of experts in a given condition who work to come up with advice for doctors in treating the condition. One such panel of which Dr. Eddy was actually a member looked at colorectal cancer screening. The international group met several days a year for several years, and subsequently issued a set of guidelines on the matter. When he privately asked the other members of the group their opinion on how much the recommendations would reduce incidence of colorectal cancer the answers ranged from 0 to 100%. Yet there was supposedly “consensus”.

A 1991 BMJ article had the following to report concerning Dr. Eddy’s dealings with these consensus groups: “For 21 problems tackled so far the evidence has been judged – by the experts – to be between poor and none for 17, and usually the best available evidence was something less than a randomized controlled trial. Often the evidence that was available contradicted current practice.”

In the next segment, I will continue to demonstrate with specific examples, how the supposed edifice of ‘evidence based medicine” is not all it is cracked up to be.

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to address a broad range of conditions in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic, a holistic health care facility located in Alexandria, Virginia. He speaks widely on how homeopathy is the answer to many of today's health challenges, and is available for phone consultations for those not in the area. Visit his website at: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

flag

Treatment of Menopausal Symptoms – Hormones or Homeopathy?

Christopher Johnson, ND

Thrive Naturopathic

www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

In the wake of recent studies illuminating the risks of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), many women are looking for alternate ways to address their menopausal symptoms. There is no better treatment for these issues than homeopathy.

I use homeopathy to address menopausal symptoms, and it works amazingly well. I prefer it to hormone use (including “bio-identical” hormones) because homeopathy stimulates the body to balance and heal itself – which it does a much better job of compared to when manipulated with hormones.

HRT can be successful. The problem is that introducing hormones into the body can have un-intended adverse effects, both short and long term. Some of the more common symptoms induced by HRT include weight gain, bloating, breast tenderness, and irregular bleeding. These effects cause between one and two-thirds of women to discontinue HRT within the first two years of treatment.

Even more concerning than these short term effects are the more serious potential long term consequences. It is well-documented that HRT can increase risk of coronary heart disease, dementia, and various types of cancers (including breast cancer). The human body is infinitely complex, so it should not be a surprise that tinkering with the delicate balance of hormones produces side effects (whether manifest immediately or years later).

Most of the data on the risks of HRT comes from studies looking at conventional (prescription) hormone products. Bio-identical hormones have been shown to be safer, but the data is limited in size and not long term.

So while the jury is still out on bio-identical hormones, homeopathy has been used safely for over 200 years. Why take the chance?

Homeopathy gently, yet powerfully stimulates the body to find its own balance. There are no side effects and absolutely no long term risks whatsoever. These facts have been proven over homeopathy’s 200 year history and use by several hundred million people worldwide.

Furthermore, studies show a greater degree of efficacy with homeopathic treatment of menopausal symptoms compared to hormonal therapy (either conventional or bio-identical).

Additionally, homeopathy heals people on a holistic level, beyond simple hormonal balance – thereby conferring broader health benefits.

Here are some of the numerous studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals which demonstrate the safety and efficacy of homeopathy in treating menopausal symptoms:

• A 2008 study published in the journal Homeopathy looked at homeopathic treatment of hot flushes in 438 women. It found, “…a significant reduction in the frequency of hot flushes by day and night and a significant reduction in the daily discomfort they caused…Ninety percent of the women reported disappearance or lessening of their symptoms, these changes mostly taking place within 15 days of starting homeopathic treatment.”
• A 2005 study published in The Journal of the British Menopause Society looked at the use of homeopathy for patients at a menopausal clinic which was part of the British National Health Service. It noted, “Patients reported significant benefit from the service. The greatest response was seen in those reporting headaches, vasomotor symptoms [hot flashes], emotional/psychological symptoms and tiredness/fatigue as their primary symptoms.”
• A 2004 study conducted at a state medical center in Poland, and published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics found, “Substantial improvement in psychological and psychosomatic symptoms was observed…[Menopausal] complaints diminished or disappeared completely in the majority of women (95.7% by patient evaluation and 96.2% by physician evaluation). Compared to standard pharmaceuticals… [homeopathic] treatment was tolerated better and lower risk of side effects was observed.”
• A 2002 study published in The Journal of the British Menopause Society stated, “Data from case histories, observational studies and uncontrolled trials suggest that the homeopathic approach can offer a clinically relevant choice for women with menopausal symptoms and those with breast cancer whether they are taking tamoxifen or not.”
• A 2005 study conducted at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine looked at homeopathic treatment of menopausal symptoms in breast cancer survivors. It found, “A statistically significant improvement in general health score in both homeopathy groups… results from this preliminary trial suggest that homeopathy may be of value in the treatment of menopausal symptoms and improving quality of life, especially in those women not on tamoxifen.”
• A 2003 study taking place at the Glascow Homeopathic Hospital in Scotland, and published in the journal Homeopathy looked at menopausal-type symptoms resulting from estrogen withdrawal in breast cancer patients. It noted, “Significant improvements in mean symptom scores were seen over the study period… Symptoms… such as fatigue and mood disturbance appear to be helped. Significant improvements in anxiety, depression and quality of life were demonstrated over the study period. The homeopathic approach appears to be clinically useful in the management of oestrogen withdrawal symptoms in women with breast cancer whether on or off Tamoxifen and improves mood disturbance.”

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to address a broad range of conditions in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic, a holistic health care facility located in Alexandria, Virginia. He speaks widely on how homeopathy is the answer to many of today's health challenges, and is available for phone consultations for those not in the area. Visit his website at: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

flag

Science… or Power?

By Christopher Johnson, ND

www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

The other day a client of mine wrote me with concerns. He had just started the homeopathic remedy I had recommended for him and was already feeling unsure if this was the path he wanted to pursue based on some negative comments he read on the internet concerning homeopathy. These views were put forth by supposed “medical experts”. I didn’t even know where to begin to educate him as to why these criticisms of homeopathy are baseless.

It will be a good day when we in the holistic medical community begin to more often strike back at these so-called “experts” – as the British Chiropractic Association recently did, taking to court a prominent scientist who publicly slandered their profession, calling their treatments ‘bogus’. The chiropractors argued the term ‘bogus’ was “factually wrong, defamatory, and a damaging allegation that could be seen to adversely affect the professional reputations of individuals or organizations.” They were vindicated by the judge who had the offending publication retract the article.

In the mainstream media and scientific and medical communities, holistic medicine is routinely attacked in an entirely un-scientific and slanderous manner. These dogmatic criticisms rarely deal in fact or engage in legitimate debate. Instead, the perpetrators usually offer generalities and vague assertions (such as a treatment being ‘bogus’, ‘un-proven’ or even ‘dangerous’). These people rely on their assumed status of legitimacy to carry the weight of their allegations without actually presenting or refuting scientific data. Rebuttals to these assertions are rarely published or given coverage.

The reason these attacks do not deal in fact or science, is that they are not actually about facts or science, and never have been. They are of course, about money, turf, and power.

Case in point is the American Medical Association (AMA), which has opposed the advancement of every medical profession that has ever existed – including chiropractors, osteopaths (now admitted to the AMA), nurses, podiatrists, acupuncturists, naturopaths, etc). The rational is always the same – these groups are a danger to the public.

To gain some perspective on that argument, you’d have to go back to the 19^th century when conventional medical doctors routinely injured (often fatally) large numbers of patients with their toxic treatments – primarily the use of heroic dosages of mercury and quinine, as well as blood-letting. Yet, even in that day and age medical doctors, state medical societies and the AMA made the same arguments against other professions – that they represented a danger to the public. Looking back we can see the converse was true.

These arguments were illegitimate at that time and they still are today, despite the fact that they are uttered from the mouths of supposed “experts”.

In 1976 it was again the chiropractic profession who challenged the medical establishment, with four chiropractors filing an anti-trust lawsuit against the AMA and other medical groups for conspiring to exclude them from the medical marketplace. The case was settled in 1987 when a US Federal District judge ruled in the chiropractors’ favor, finding that the AMA engaged in ''systematic, long-term wrongdoing and the long-term intent to destroy a licensed profession.” The judge also found the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Radiology guilty of participating in this conspiracy. Other medical groups, including the Illinois Medical Society and the American Hospital Association saw the writing on the wall and settled out of court.

In upcoming writings I will speak specifically to the subject of homeopathy - why it continues to engender so much spite and venom from the conventional medical and scientific communities, and why the arguments put forth against it are scientifically unsound and don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to address a broad range of conditions in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic, a holistic health care facility located in Alexandria, Virginia. He speaks widely on how homeopathy is the answer to many of today's health challenges, and is available for phone consultations for those not in the area. Visit his website at: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

flag

Evidence-Based Medicine? (Part 2)

By Christopher Johnson, ND

Thrive Naturopathic

www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

Medical Journals

In the first segment of this series I presented evidence that randomized controlled trials (RCT’s) are often manipulated by the drug industry. In this segment, I will demonstrate how these studies are then used to influence both the medical community and general public.

Distorted trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry would do them no good if everyone knew the studies were biased. To avoid this undesirable outcome, the drug companies need validation from a trusted source. Enter medical journals.

Everyone knows the article they read in the New York Times or the local newspaper, or the story they hear on the nightly news – “A recent study published in the journal X found that X drug reduces symptoms of X disease by X amount”. The media relies on the supposed integrity of the prominent medical journals.

There may have been a time when this trust was justified, although considering that the rise of JAMA – and for that matter, the AMA - was significantly aided by tobacco industry advertising from the early 1900’s right up through the 1950’s, maybe not. In any case it is clear that in this day and age the most prestigious medical journals are far different than their objective, pillar-of-science reputations suggest.

But don’t take my word for it. Consider the following:

• “Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies”
  • - Richard Smith - for 25 years editor of BMJ. 2005.
• “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”.
  • - Richard Horton - Editor, The Lancet. 2004
• The pharmaceutical industry is “primarily a marketing machine” which is willing to co-opt “every institution that might stand in its way.”
  • - Marcia Angell, for 20 years an editor of New England Journal of Medicine. Currently a professor at Harvard Medical School. 2004
• “Medical journals have allowed their interests to become aligned with those of the pharmaceutical industry by printing advertisements for drugs, publishing trials designed by drug companies’ marketing departments, and making profits on reprints used as marketing tools.” Editors, PLoS (Public Library of Science), 2004.

Here is some data from the medical literature itself:

• The 2009 BMJ flu vaccine study mentioned in my previous segment found that studies funded by the drug industry were significantly more likely to appear in “high impact factor” journals - meaning, journals which have a strong influence on both the medical community and the media (JAMA, NEJM, The Lancet, BMJ, etc). This study also found that industry-funded studies were more likely to be cited as references by other studies – further amplifying their impact.
  • “Whole or part industrial funding was associated with publication in journals with higher impact factors”
  • “Higher citation index factor was associated with partial or complete industry funding”
  • Studies “sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were more likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media.”
• In a 2005 editorial, former BMJ editor Richard Smith offered the following data:
  • “Between two thirds and three quarters of the trials published in the major journals – Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine – are funded by the industry. For the BMJ it’s only one-third – partly, perhaps, because the journal has less influence than the others in North America, which is responsible for half of all the revenue of drug companies”  

So here we have a situation where drug companies manipulate studies to get the results they want and then entice prestigious medical journals with vast sums of money. The medical journals are only too willing to un-critically accept and publish these studies, thereby lending them credibility. The media, who are also highly indebted to the pharmaceutical and other medical industries (as they are significant sources of advertising revenue) then, again un-critically put forth this information for the public to digest.

Doctors then use this information to guide their treatment protocols. Being that they simply don’t have the time to pour through dozens of studies to figure out which ones are accurate they must rely on the good name of various medical journals and take the studies as presented. Additionally, a good number of doctors, especially at larger medical centers with research facilities, receive significant amounts of money from the medical industry and are therefore biased in their assessment of the medical literature.

The end result is that everywhere patients/consumers turn they are reassured that various drugs and procedures are “evidence-based”. All sources of the mainstream media tell them so. Prestigious medical journals tell them so. Their doctors tell them so. Surely it must be the case.

In the next segment I will demonstrate how the “evidence” base of conventional medicine is much thinner than asserted.

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to address a broad range of conditions in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic, a holistic health care facility located in Alexandria, Virginia. He speaks widely on how homeopathy is the answer to many of today's health challenges, and is available for phone consultations for those not in the area. Visit his website at: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

flag

Evidence-Based Medicine? (Part I)

By Christopher Johnson, ND

Thrive Naturopathic

www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

One of the common criticisms of holistic medicine is that it lacks a substantial evidence base. This accusation is put forth by all segments of the conventional medical community and then disseminated to the public through the print and news media whose stories almost invariably cite the opinions of (conventional) medical experts cautioning against “un-tested” or “un-proven” therapies.

It is of course a reasonable and laudable proposition that medical therapies should have demonstrated safety and efficacy before being offered to the public. And it is undeniable that the quantity of evidence supporting most holistic therapies pales compared to the avalanche of data supposedly validating various conventional drugs and procedures.

However, upon closer investigation, the situation is not nearly so clear cut as critics of holistic medicine would have it.

In this series of articles I will provide the context within which to consider this criticism, and demonstrate that while valid on one level, it is from a broader perspective misleading and incorrect.

RCT’s

In this day and age when it is said a therapy is not “evidence-based”, what is generally meant is there is a dearth of randomized controlled trials (RCT’s) assessing the safety and efficacy of the therapy. Conventional medicine considers these types of studies the gold standard.

Again, this is a reasonable enough criterion. After all, if a therapy can be rigorously tested in a neutral (randomized) environment and found to be more effective than a control (either placebo or other type of therapy), it engenders more confidence than if the therapy were say, tested by researchers with conflicts of interest who manipulated the study environment and did not demonstrate the superiority of the treatment to either another form of treatment or no treatment.

However, RCT’s are often not as neutral as some would like you to believe. Consider the following

• An analysis of an enormous number of RCT’s, which was published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2003 found that drug studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were 4.05 times more likely to have a favorable outcome compared to studies funded by either government, universities, or other private not for profit entities.
  • Said the authors, “Research funded by the drug industry was more likely to produce results favoring the product made by the company sponsoring the research than studies funded by other sources. The results apply across a wide range of disease states, drugs, and drug classes, over at least two decades…the totality of the evidence reported in our meta-analysis… suggests that there is some type of systemic bias to the outcome of published research funded by the pharmaceutical industry.”
• A 2007 study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and UCSF looked at the relationship between drug company funding, results of studies, and conclusions of studies. It considered 124 meta-analyses of anti-hypertensive drugs and found that although industry-funded studies were not more likely to show positive results, such studies were 4.09 times more likely to assert positive conclusions. In other words, the positive conclusions put forth by authors of industry-funded studies were not supported by the actual data of the trials. Also of note here is the fact that 4 years after the above-mentioned BMJ study, the data remains almost identical – 4.09 compared to 4.05.
  • “Meta-analyses of anti-hypertensive drugs and with financial ties to one drug company are not associated with favourable results, but are associated with favourable conclusions.”
• A 1994 study published in The Archives of Internal Medicine looked at the results of all RCT’s of NSAID’s (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry between the years of 1987-1990. There were 56 trials during this time. All 56 trials had positive outcomes!
  • The authors concluded, “These claims of superiority, especially in regard to side effect profiles, are often not supported by trial data. These data raise concerns about selective publication or biased interpretation of results in manufacturer-associated trials.”
• A 2009 study published in the BMJ looked at trials concerning flu vaccine. This study was conducted by a team of researchers for the Cochrane Collaborative – a group which does exhaustive reviews of the available data concerning various medical subjects. The Cochrane groups are widely considered to be the top experts in reviewing medical literature. This particular systematic review which looked at 259 trials found an enormous gap in the majority of studies between the results of the study and the conclusions presented by the authors
  • “Most of our studies (70%) were of poor quality with over-optimistic conclusions – that is, not supported by the data presented.”
  • “Given our findings of lack of concordance in primary studies…what you see is not necessarily what you get.”
• In an editorial published in 2005 in PLoS (Public Library of Science), Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ for 25 years said, “The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want”

What does this tell us? That RCT’s are not reliable, not to be trusted? No, actually when RCT’s are designed and presented honestly they can be extremely accurate and provide valuable insight into the safety and efficacy of therapies. What this information does tell us is that RCT’s designed by industry are either 1) not honestly designed, 2) not honestly presented or 3) both. The authors of the definitive 2003 BMJ study suggest both.

In the next segment of this series, I will explore how this inaccurate and misleading data affects both the medical community and those receiving medical care in terms of access to and perception of conventional versus holistic medicine.

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to address a broad range of conditions in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic, a holistic health care facility located in Alexandria, Virginia. He speaks widely on how homeopathy is the answer to many of today's health challenges, and is available for phone consultations for those not in the area. Visit his website at: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

flag

Homeopathy for Injuries and Trauma

Christopher Johnson, ND

www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

Homeopathy has a long tradition of helping heal various injuries and traumas. People are often amazed at the relief they get from homeopathic care for everything from low back pain to ankle sprains, PCL tears to fractures to head trauma. Modern medical research is gradually building a body of evidence which affirms these experiences.

Post-exertion muscle soreness

• A 2003 double-blind, placebo-controlled study published in the journal Homeopathy, looking at the effect of the homeopathic remedy Arnica Montana on post-exertion muscle soreness in Oslo marathon runners found “Muscle soreness immediately after the marathon run was lower in the Arnica group than in the placebo group”

General injuries

• A 2008 observational study published in the journal Complementary Therapies in Medicine compared homeopathic and conventional treatment of common injuries (primarily strains, sprains, and contusions to the hand, ankle, and knee). The homeopathic treatment consisted of an ointment called Traumeel. Results showed “Complete resolution of the principal symptom at the end of therapy occurred in 59.4% of patients in the homoeopathy group versus 57.8% of patients in the conventional group. No adverse events were reported in the Traumeel group compared to six adverse events (6.3%) in the conventional group. Physician-assessed tolerability was significantly better in the Traumeel group.”

Tendinopathy

• A 2005 study published in the journal Explore, compared homeopathic treatment (Traumeel ointment) to conventional treatment (1% diclofenac gel – trade name Voltaren) in cases of acute tendinopathies. The study found that Traumeel performed as well (actually slightly better, but not to a degree qualifying as “statistically significant”) as the diclofenac on all measured parameters. In the area of improving motility, the Traumeel treatment was very close to being statistically superior to diclofenac: “Homeopathic therapy was non-inferior to diclofenac therapy on all variables. For motility-related variables, there was a trend toward superiority of Traumeel.”

Mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI)

• A 1999 double-blind, placebo-controlled study authored by E. Chapman at the Harvard University School of Medicine and published in The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation looked at homeopathic treatment of MTBI. It found that individualized homeopathic treatment was highly effective: “These results indicate a significant improvement from the homeopathic treatment versus the control and translate into clinically significant outcomes.”

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to address a broad range of conditions in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic, a holistic health care facility located in Alexandria, Virginia. He speaks widely on how homeopathy is the answer to many of today's health challenges, and is available for phone consultations for those not in the area. Visit his website at: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

flag

Confusion Over Homeopathy

Christopher Johnson, ND

Thrive Naturopathic

www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

When I speak in public about homeopathy, people are routinely surprised to learn the facts about this powerful system of medicine. It quickly becomes apparent that what I am describing is completely at odds with the impression put forth the mainstream media and conventional medical community - one which usually portrays homeopathy as unscientific, ineffective, and (sometimes) dangerous. In truth, all three of these assertions are demonstrably false.

Here are some basic facts about homeopathy which you may have not known:

Homeopathy is the second most commonly used form of medicine in the world, behind indigenous herbal medicine (conventional Western or “allopathic” medicine is fourth). It is utilized by hundreds of millions of people in over 80 countries, and is part of the national health system in the UK, Germany, France, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Brazil, and Mexico.

In many countries, homeopathy is a board-regulated medical specialty (like cardiology or oncology), practiced only by medical doctors. There are over 200,000 homeopathic doctors in India. Over 40% of all French family practice doctors and 22% of Scottish pediatricians utilize homeopathy. Homeopathy is offered in 93% of all German obstetric clinics and practices.

Homeopathy was founded in the early 19^th century by German physician and chemist Samuel Hahnemann, MD, and has been developed and refined over the past 200 years through the collaboration of medical doctors around the globe. It is an academic and formal system of medicine, with dedicated homeopathic medical schools and hospitals throughout the world (This is no longer true in the US of course, but was so up until the early 20^th century, at which time the decades-long effort of allopathic medicine to push homeopathy out of the mainstream finally succeeded).

Homeopathy’s effectiveness is supported by a large body of research in the medical literature. There are literally hundreds of well-designed trials published in peer-reviewed journals which demonstrate this.

A 1997 meta-analysis (a comprehensive review of the available evidence – in this case, all the available double-blind or randomized, placebo-controlled studies of homeopathy) published in The Lancet found homeopathy to be 2.45 more likely than placebo to produce benefit across a wide range of conditions. This number is far higher than the likelihood of efficacy for most conventional drugs.

For those not familiar with the peer-reviewed medical literature, there are 4 general-topic medical journals considered the most prestigious, scientifically-rigorous, and reliable: The Lancet, The British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association and The New England Journal of Medicine.

Books could be written detailing the studies showing homeopathy’s efficacy in various conditions; I’ll mention but a few:

• A 2009 randomized, double-blind study conducted at a state medical school in Brazil found homeopathy to be comparable to Prozac (Fluoxetine) in treating moderate to severe depression. Actually, homeopathy was superior in every measure, but not to a degree considered “statistically significant”.
• A 2001 prospective trial in a Swiss pediatric practice found homeopathic treatment of ADHD to be comparable (actually, slightly more effective) than Ritalin (Methylphenidate).
• A double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at the Harvard University School of Medicine, published in 1999 found homeopathy to be effective in treating MTBI (Mild Traumatic Brain Injury) (the signature injury of the current Iraq war, by the way).
• A 2007 German prospective study published in the journal Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine found a specific homeopathic product to be comparable (again, actually slightly more effective) when compared to Ativan (Lorazepam) for treatment of various nervous conditions (insomnia, distress, anxieties, restless, burnout, etc).

As to the safety issue, there can be no doubt that homeopathy is the safest medicine there is (excluding non-medical interventions such as Reiki, prayer, etc).

In its 200 year history, being used by hundreds of millions (probably billions) of patients, there has never been a single death attributed to homeopathic medicine. This is a safety record un-matched by even generally safe therapies such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, nutritional supplements, etc (all of which have caused a small number of deaths).

The safety of homeopathy should not even be compared to allopathic medicine, which according to a 2000 study published in JAMA and authored by Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, is responsible for 106,000 deaths per year in the US alone. Yes, you read that correctly – 106,000 deaths per year in the US attributed to properly-prescribed allopathic medications. This number does not include medical errors, and is actually a more conservative number than the one put forth by the Institute of Medicine which issued a similar report with slightly higher numbers the year previous. 

In the city where I live – Washington DC – there is a statue of Samuel Hahnemann, in a high-profile area of the city (Scott Circle – 16^th and R St, NW). It was erected under the approval of President McKinley, who was an advocate of homeopathy (as with 10 other US Presidents).

The statue indicates the once-esteemed status of this powerful system of medicine. Though pushed out of the US medical community since the early 20^th century, the popularity of homeopathy has been growing in the past few decades. This inexpensive, resource-sparing, robustly-scientific medicine may yet emerge as a significant answer to our nation’s health care problems.

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to address a broad range of conditions in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic, a holistic health care facility located in Alexandria, Virginia. He speaks widely on how homeopathy is the answer to many of today's health challenges, and is available for phone consultations for those not in the area. Visit his website at: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

flag

“Unproven” Holistic Medicine

Christopher Johnson, ND

ThriveNaturopathic
www.ThriveNaturopathic.com
 

There is a series of articles on holistic medicine, recently published by the Associated Press which starts out with the claim “EDITOR'S NOTE: Ten years and $2.5 billion in research have found no cures from alternative medicine. Yet these mostly unproven treatments are now mainstream and used by more than a third of all Americans.”

All of the articles in this series show holistic medicine in an extremely negative light. Unfortunately, this sort of approach is what prevails in today’s mainstream media.

The most recent joint CDC/NCCAM report on holistic medicine use found that 38% of Americans visited a CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) practitioner in the year 2007. Yet, the mainstream media continues to insult its audience by publishing uninformed, junk journalism which unfairly criticizes holistic medicine.

The authors of these articles have no medical training whatsoever, yet they feel entitled to publish critiques of medicine (presumably for the purpose of pleasing the pharmaceutical companies and other medical interests which advertise in their publications). In the case of this AP series, their claims are factually incorrect and deliberately misleading.

There is abundant evidence to show that holistic medicine works, and a growing body of medical research attests to this fact. My field – homeopathy – has been shown to effectively treat depression, hot flashes, ADHD, fibromyalgia, childhood diarrhea, sinusitis, acute and recurrent middle ear infection, psoriasis, eczema, and much more.

In fact, homeopathy is capable of effectively treating the entire spectrum of human (and animal) disease. Conditions that have not been proven in clinical trials to respond to homeopathy exist solely because the studies have not yet been run.

Homeopathy is the 2^nd most popular form of medicine worldwide (“allopathic” medicine ranks 4^th), and has been safely and effectively used by literally hundreds of millions over the last 2 centuries. Furthermore, the medicine hasn’t changed – the same remedies used to treat, for example, depression in 1809 are just as effective in 2009.

One of the ways in which homeopathy proved itself over the centuries is in treatment of epidemic disease. At a time when allopathic medicine had basically no tools to deal with conditions such as yellow fever, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, typhoid, etc. homeopathy was consistently shown to work with tremendous efficacy. These facts are a matter of historical record.

Yet somehow, the authors of this AP series, and numerous other “journalists” in the mainstream press attempt to paint homeopathy and other august medical traditions like acupuncture, as “unproven”. It should come as no surprise to these media dinosaurs that their readership is leaving them in record numbers. 

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to address a broad range of conditions in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic, a holistic health care facility located in Alexandria, Virginia. He speaks widely on how homeopathy is the answer to many of today's health challenges, and is available for phone consultations for those not in the area. Visit his website at: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

flag

Homeopathy and Children

Christopher Johnson, ND
ThriveNaturopathic
www.ThriveNaturopathic.com

Since it’s inception in the early 19^th century, homeopathy has been favored by mothers in treatment of their children’s ailments. In that era, it was seen as an alternative to the violent and dangerous methods of allopathic medicine. Over time, homeopathy’s popularity increased, with the awareness that it was not only gentler and better tolerated by children, but more effective as well.

Today, despite advances in the safety and efficacy of allopathic medicine, homeopathy still stands out as a powerful and gentle way to treat kids. Homeopathy can work wonders in simple ills such as cold and flu, as well as more severe childhood conditions, such as ADHD, autism, developmental disorders, and epilepsy where allopathic methods are often of limited value. And unlike conventional medical treatments (whose effects are rarely studied for more than a few years), homeopathic remedies have a centuries-old record of both safety and efficacy. Remedies that were used by founder Samuel Hahnemann are often successfully used to treat “new” diseases and conditions.

Homeopathy is a true gift to the pediatric population. Not only can it treat serious disease, but perhaps just as importantly it can treat the more subtle imbalances that result from the physical and emotional traumas (minor and major) which are part of every childhood. In my office, it is absolutely commonplace to work with middle-aged adults whose problems are traceable to traumas from their childhood/adolescence. Homeopathy can nip these troubles in the bud before they lead to decades of suffering.

Because it can stimulate the body to heal itself in a complete manner, homoeopathy holds the promise of actually increasing the health of children throughout their lives, not just reactively suppressing symptoms – a point noted by renowned homeopath George Vithoulkas, MD, “In my 30 years of practice I have seen children who were treated homeopathically for a long period of time and who have developed and become healthier than their siblings…I continually observe that children who have been treated well with homeopathic medicines usually exceed in height their parents and siblings who have not been similarly treated. This simple observation shows how deeply homeopathy can affect the body…”

Christopher Johnson, ND is a naturopathic doctor specializing in the use of homeopathy and nutrition to treat a broad range of disease in both the adult and pediatric populations. He is owner of Thrive Naturopathic. Visit his website: www.ThriveNaturopathic.com for more information.

flag