Vitalforce

Treatment by a homeopath can achieve better outcomes for similar or lower costs. A German study involving 493 patients seen in general practice found that treatment by a homeopath gave better outcomes than conventional treatment for similar costs[4]

This study published in 2005 was commissioned by a German health insurance company to see whether they should continue to cover homeopathic treatment. The outcomes and costs of homeopathic and conventional treatment were compared in patients being treated for chronic conditions commonly seen in general practice. These included headache, low back pain, depression, insomnia and sinusitis in adults, and atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis and asthma in children. Limitations of the study: This study was non-randomised meaning that the patients decided whether they wanted homeopathic or conventional treatment; although this reflects real life, critics would say that there may be differences between the people tending to choose each treatment which could influence the results.

Witt C, Keil T, Selim D, et al. Outcome and costs of homeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: a comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders. Complement Ther Med 2005; 13: 79-86 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=16036164 In a study involving 499 children aged 18mths to 4 years, homeopathic treatment was found to be more medically effective and cost-effective than antibiotics in the treatment of recurrent upper respiratory tract infections[5]

This French study compared homeopathic and conventional treatment of recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis. Homeopathic treatment gave significantly better results than antibiotics in terms of medical effectiveness (e.g. number of episodes of illness) with lower direct medical costs (88 Euros vs 99 Euros) and significantly less sick-leave (9.5% of parents vs 31.6% of parents). Trichard M, Chaufferin G Nicoloyannis N. Pharmacoeconomic comparison between homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis in children. Homeopathy, 2005; 94: 3-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15751328

Treatment by a homeopath can reduce the need for conventional drugs A survey involving 223 patients in an NHS General Practice found that over a 1 year period that treatment by a homeopath was made available, the number of consultations with GPs was reduced by 70% and expenses for medication were reduced by 50%.[6]

Limitations of the study: The costs of homeopathic treatment were not calculated, preventing a comparison with the savings made in the area of conventional treatment. A 500-patient survey at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital showed that many patients were able to reduce or stop conventional medication following homeopathic treatment.[7] The size of the effect varied between diagnoses, for example 72% of patients with skin complaints reported being able to stop or reduce their conventional medication; for cancer patients there was no reduction.

A study compared treatment by a homeopath with conventional treatment for acute ear infections in children. Out of 103 children in the homeopathy group only 5 needed antibiotics. The children receiving homeopathy had faster pain relief during the initial infection and fewer ear infections over the following year.[8]

The results found that median duration of pain during acute otitis media (middle ear infection) was 2 days in the homeopathy group; 3 days in conventional care group. 70.7% of the homeopathy group had no recurrence over the following year, compared with 56.5% of conventional care group. 29.3 % of the homeopathy group had a maximum of three ear infections within one year, compared with The study published in the International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics concluded that homeopathy should be the first line treatment for acute otitis media in children. Friese K-H, et al. Homeopathic treatment of otitis media in children: comparisons with conventional therapy. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 1997; 35: 296-301 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=9247843

Potential impact of homeopathy on the NHS budget

The total amount spent on homeopathy in the NHS is approximately £4 million per year, representing just 0.0004% of the total NHS budget.[9] The available evidence tells us that we have a situation where a comparatively small amount of money is being used to generate a very high level of patient satisfaction, but what could be achieved if use of homeopathy within the NHS was expanded?

Leading economist Christopher Smallwood was commissioned to take an independent look at the contribution which complementary therapies can potentially make to the delivery of healthcare in the UK.[10]

He concluded that if only 4% of GPs were to offer homeopathy as a major frontline approach to treatment, this would result in an annual saving for the NHS of £190 million.

Smallwood’s report included a study by Swayne et al. published in 1992 which examined the prescription costs of 22 doctors in the UK found. The study found that practices which included a GP using homeopathy prescribed 12% fewer items of medication per patient (including both conventional drugs and homeopathic medicines) compared with other local practices. Smallwood calculates that if this figure was extrapolated to a national level the number of items prescribed would be reduced by 41.5 million.

Swayne, J. The cost and effectiveness of homeopathy. Br Homeopath J 1992; 81: 148-150 The need for further research

The evidence suggests that if homeopathic treatment was offered as the first option in certain clinical areas, similar or superior results could be achieved at similar or lower costs. The resulting reduction in use of conventional drugs (such as antibiotics for common recurrent childhood infections) could have a positive impact on the NHS drug bill. With such serious issues at stake funding is needed for further research to confirm these results in larger studies.

This is an interesting article on the artificial sweetener aspartame (Canderal here in SA). Not only is there no good evidence that artificial sweeteners aid weight control, there is also evidence linking aspartame to adverse effects on health.

For example, aspartame liberates methanol into the body which can be converted to formaldehyde (used to preserve dead bodies), which has recently been added to the official ‘cancer-causing’ list of chemicals in the US. Animal work shows that aspartame at permitted levels increases the risk of several types of cancer.

A piece in a rheumatology journal describes what appears to be aspartame’s ability to induce fibromyalgia. This condition is characterised by pain and tenderness in the muscles. The paper describes two ‘case studies’ in whom fibromyalgia appears to be caused by ingestion of aspartame. The first of these concerns a 50-year-old woman whose symptoms of fibromyalgia (more than 10 years standing) evaporated on holiday when not consuming aspartame. The symptoms returned when she came home and resumed aspartame use, but resolved again once the aspartame was stopped once more. Patients often report that their fibromyalgia symptoms have resolved when on holiday. The first thing to think about here is sunshine and vitamin D, because vitamin D deficiency can cause muscle pain, and boosting vitamin D does seem to have the capacity to resolve this symptom.

It is possible that in this woman’s case, sunlight and other factors had something to do with the resolution of her symptoms while abroad. However, the fact that her symptoms resolved on exclusion of aspartame strongly suggests this substance was the primary cause of her symptoms. The second case described in the article was a 43-year-old man who had suffered with pain in his neck, forearms, wrists and hands for 3 years. Removing aspartame from his diet resolved his symptoms.

Case studies such as these don’t prove that these individuals’ symptoms were due to aspartame – it is possible that their improvement was due to the placebo response and the recurrence of symptoms due to what is called the ‘nocebo’ response (like the placebo response, but when the response is negative rather than positive). However, observations such as these can be the start of advancement in our understanding of the effect of treatments and should not be dismissed. Certainly, if you are suffering from generalised pain and fibromyalgia, and consuming aspartame, it is highly advisable to stop it as a matter of course. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no good evidence that aspartame has benefits for health, you will have nothing to lose by eliminating it, other than perhaps your ‘unexplained’ symptoms.

Homeopathy is a system of medicine which involves treating the individual with highly diluted substances, given mainly in tablet form, with the aim of triggering the body’s natural system of healing. Based on their specific symptoms, a homeopath will match the most appropriate medicine to each patient.

Like with like

Homeopathy is based on the principle that you can treat ‘like with like’, that is, a substance which causes symptoms when taken in large doses, can be used in small amounts to treat those same symptoms. For example, drinking too much coffee can cause sleeplessness and agitation, so according to this principle, when made into a homeopathic medicine, it could be used to treat people with these symptoms. This concept is sometimes used in conventional medicine, for example, the stimulant Ritalin is used to treat patients with ADHD, or small doses of allergens such as pollen are sometimes used to de-sensitise allergic patients. However, one major difference with homeopathic medicines is that substances are used in ultra high dilutions, which makes them non-toxic.

The science

Homeopathic medicines (which homeopaths call remedies) are prepared by specialist pharmacies using a careful process of dilution and succussion (a specific form of vigorous shaking).

As yet, science has not been able to explain the mechanism of action of ultra high dilutions in the body, but laboratory experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that homeopathically prepared substances cause biological effects. For example, the hormone thyroxine prepared as a homeopathic ‘30C’ dilution can slow down the process of metamorphosis of tadpoles into frogs.1

One theory is that during the production of a homeopathic medicine, the dilution and agitation processes cause an interaction between the original material (e.g. a plant such as Belladonna) and the water and alcohol it is mixed with. This creates tiny new structures (nanostructures) which are the ‘active ingredient’ and remain present even when the sample has been diluted many, many times.2

There is also a growing body of research evidence that homeopathic medicines have clinical effects.

Its origins

The principle of treating “like with like” dates back to Hippocrates (460-377BC) but in its current form, homeopathy has been widely used worldwide for more than 200 years.

It was discovered by a German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann, who, shocked with the harsh medical practises of the day (which included blood-letting, purging and the use of poisons such as arsenic), looked for a way to reduce the damaging side-effects associated with medical treatment.

He began experimenting on himself and a group of healthy volunteers, giving smaller and smaller medicinal doses, and found that as well as reducing toxicity, the medicines actually appeared to be more effective the lower the dose. He also observed that symptoms caused by toxic ‘medicines’ such as mercury, were similar to those of the diseases they were being used to treat e.g. syphilis, which lead to the principle he described as ‘like cures like’.

Hahnemann went on to document his work, and his texts formed the foundations of homeopathic medicine as it is practised today. A BBC Radio 4 documentary aired in December 2010 described Hahnemann as a medical pioneer who worked tirelessly to improve medical practice, insisting that medicines were tested before use.

Allergy is an abnormal reaction or increased sensitivity to certain substances. The allergic individual produces symptoms when exposed to these substances, which are harmless to non-allergic people. The main reason for this is that allergic people make a special type of antibody called immunoglobin E (IgE), which can react with environmental substances in a harmful way. These substances which lead to secretion of IgE antibodies are called allergens.

The reaction between allergens and IgE antibodies causes the release of substances such as histamine, which produce allergic symptoms in the skin, nose, eyes, chest, etc. The most common allergens are animal dander, air pollutants, pollens (trees, grass, and weeds), house dust, house dust mites, moulds, some drugs, and many foods, especially fish, eggs, dairy, wheat and nuts. Bee and wasp stings may cause allergic reactions, with fatal results in rare cases. Additionally, feathers, wood, dyes, cosmetics, and perfumes may act as allergens.

Two main types of allergies

1. Seasonal allergies like hay fever are more common in the spring when plant pollination begins. Trees and grass cause most symptoms in the spring, while ragweed is responsible for the majority of autumn symptoms. 
2. Perennial allergies are usually year-round problems. Common triggers for perennial allergies include mould spores, pet dander and dust mite. 

A distinction needs to be made between anaphylactic shock and common allergy/intolerances. Anaphylaxis is a medical emergency as it is a severe allergy, which causes constriction of the airways and shuts down the respiratory system, causing death. General allergies or intolerances are just the body’s way of over-reacting to a substance that is totally harmless. The allergen should be identified as soon as possible and avoided. In some cases, it is possible to de-sensitize the body to the allergen over a few months of treatment.

Symptoms of allergy

Skin-related allergy symptoms

• Itching 
• Redness 
• Burning 
• Eruptions, rashes and/or hives 
• Dry skin 

Eye-related allergy symptoms 

• Itching from the eyes 
• Redness 
• Watery eyes 
• Foreign body sensation in eyes 

Respiratory tract-related allergies 

• Wheezing 
• Cough 
• Shortness of breath 
• Congestion 
• Feeling of suffocation 

Allergic rhinitis symptoms

• Watery or runny nose and eyes 
• Itching nose, eyes and/or throat 
• Nasal congestion with stuffy nose 
• Post-nasal drip (PND) 
• Redness of tip of the nose 

Gastro-Intestinal tract-related allergy symptoms

• Nausea 
• Vomiting 
• Diarrhoea 
• Cramping  
• Gas and bloating