WHO and Homeopathy

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Does anyone know about a WHO report favouring homeowoo?

A woo claims there is one;

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3796

but fails to include anything in his post that would support this contention.

However, we have seen some mention of a homeo-biased report from the WHO, which could be the same thing;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

"However, the Lancet also reports that a draft report on homeopathy by the World Health Organization says the majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers published over the past 40 years have demonstrated that homeopathy is superior to placebo in placebo-controlled trials.

Furthermore, it says that homeopathy is equivalent to conventional medicines in the treatment of illnesses, both in humans and animals.

Professor Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, said the draft WHO report seemed overtly biased and that all of the trials cited happened to be positive."

Does anyone know more about this?

[dogbite666]

From the BBc report you cited:

A spokeswoman from the Society of Homeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo."

Err...which studies exactly is she refering to? This next quote from her just sums up the rational of the woo-woo crowd.

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

One can only wonder then how they managed to demonstrate that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo!

[Mojo]

From the BBc report you cited:

A spokeswoman from the Society of Homeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo."

Err...which studies exactly is she refering to? This next quote from her just sums up the rational of the woo-woo crowd.

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

One can only wonder then how they managed to demonstrate that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo!Also, as I mentioned recently, look at this document from the Society of Homeopaths website: An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/documents/Positivehomeopathy.PDF)

Note all the DBPC trials they list on pages 5 to 9. Hasn't anyone told them it's "not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy"?

[DrRyanScarsella]

Throughout my education, peer reviewed studies and articles have been the gold standard in research. Lately, on some of the most up to date healing publications, allopathic, homeopathic and altenative have been bashing peer reviewed article in the U.S. and in other countries. It seems that the peer have been swayed, as well as the scientists conducting the studies in their design as well as results by drug companies funding the studies. It is aggravating as a healing proffessional and as a scientist to hear of such things. The F.D.A as well as the W.H.O. have been implicated. I hate the corruption of money in science. I promise in my own work not to be swayed by such things. As far as homeopathy, I hope that the W.H.O. does some specific research before sanctioning anything like that. Herbs can be as potent as any man made chemical(see norway post earlier).

[Mojo]

Does anyone know about a WHO report favouring homeowoo?

A woo claims there is one;

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3796

but fails to include anything in his post that would support this contention.Note the way he goes straight from "... the World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared that homeopathy is the second-most used medical system internationally" to a quotation stating that "clinical trials have proved that this method of treatment has been successful...", requiring the reader to carry on for another line or so before discovering that the quotation comes not from the WHO but from someone at the Central Research Institute for Homeopathy. No possibility of misunderstandings there, then. :rolleyes:

[Mojo]

Herbs can be as potent as any man made chemical(see norway post earlier).By "potent" I assume you mean "dangerous" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50003).

[tsg]

A spokeswoman from the Society of Homeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo."

[...]

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

"I didn't borrow your plate, it was broken when you gave it to me and it wasn't broken when I gave it back."

She needs to get her story straight.

[Dragon]

... As far as homeopathy, I hope that the W.H.O. does some specific research before sanctioning anything like that. Herbs can be as potent as any man made chemical(see norway post earlier).You appear to be confusing homeopathy with herbalism - they are very different things. Herbs can of course have a pharmacological effect (and can be dangerous as Mojo's link demonstrates). Homeopathy, on the other hand, is complete nonsense with no chance of a pharmacological effect in the commonly used dilutions (the danger with homeopathy comes from not getting real medical help).

[Euromutt]

Note the way he goes straight from "... the World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared that homeopathy is the second-most used medical system internationally" to a quotation stating that "clinical trials have proved that this method of treatment has been successful...", requiring the reader to carry on for another line or so before discovering that the quotation comes not from the WHO but from someone at the Central Research Institute for Homeopathy. No possibility of misunderstandings there, then. :rolleyes:Not only that, but that one passage--"... the World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared that homeopathy is the second-most used medical system internationally"--is literally the only thing in the article which makes any reference to the WHO. Note in particular that no mention is made of the WHO issuing any approval of homeopathy; if you take that line by itself, all you have is the WHO acknowledging that homeopathy exists, and has some measure of popularity.

As the second poster in that homeopathy forum thread notes, there is no reference to any report, press statement, or whatnot by the WHO making this "declaration." In this regard, it's notable that the WHO site's list of health topics (http://www.who.int/topics/en/) has no entries for "alternative medicine," "complementary medicine" or, indeed "homeopathy." The list of WHO-issued Fact Sheets (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/en/) shows that there are no Fact Sheets on these topics either. Note that there is a Fact Sheet on "Traditional Medicine" (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/) which covers sCAM to some extent, and describes the "scientific evidence about TM/CAM’s safety and efficacy" as "limited." Most likely, politicking by certain member states, notably China, both Koreas and Vietnam, is to blame that the wording isn't markedly stronger. As an aside, I hardly consider the point that "the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea [has] fully integrated traditional medicine into [its] health care system" to be a ringing endorsement of TM.

I can dig up the occasional regional conference report which does state that homeopathy is the most widely practiced form of sCAM, and I suppose it logically follows that it must therefore be the second most popular "medical system" worldwide, after actual medicine, but no such report endorses homeopathy.

[The Observer]

In August, I had a 2-hour long lectur from Robbert Laingh (I hope I get his namre right...). He's the guy (or so it appeared), who's responsible for making the outlines for the direction pharmaceutical sciences should take in the next 10, 15 years. He was quite harsh on the pharmaceutical world...

But didn't mention a word about homeopathy. I think we can be save to say the WHO has no interest in homeopathy whatsoever...