Why are homeopathic, natural healers treated with such disdain when their evidence proves correct?

Saturday, April 02, 2016 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: homeopathy, big pharma, skeptics

---

(NaturalNews) The so-called "old order" is collapsing, and that is causing the (present) masters of the universe to lash out in anger.

One pillar of the old order is traditional medicine, which of course includes Big Pharma. This is where some of the fiercest opposition to change is coming from, as we have seen with the incessant propagandized criticism of naturopathic and homeopathic healers – despite the fact that these practitioners of more wholesome medicine bring legitimate comfort and healing to millions around the world.

As noted by Hippocratic Post, official rejection of homeopathic medicine by governments and the mainstream medical industry has badly – and unfairly – tainted its reputation. The site points out that the Faculty of Homeopathy in England, for instance, has about 800 members who are fully qualified medical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, veterinary surgeons and other healthcare professions who have many years of combined clinical experience and are regulated by their respective professional bodies.

"Nevertheless, they are frequently subjected to vindictive attacks from opponents of homeopathy, who attempt to denigrate their clinical expertise and professionalism by using words such as 'quack' and 'charlatan,'" the site noted. "And all because they use homeopathy to bring relief to many patients whose symptoms have failed to respond to conventional medicine."

Homeopathy cuts into Big Pharma's profits and we can't have that

Many who follow the homeopathic medical field are taken aback by the level of hostility it faces, especially from people who refuse to engage in an intelligent, well-thought-out debate over their disagreements.

Some insist that the scientific evidence base for homeopathy is not conclusive, but that does not mean that there is no evidence that it can be effective. In fact, Hippocratic Post reports, there are positive randomized controlled trials – the "gold standard" of research – that support homeopathy's therapeutic effects over the use of placebos.

Also, homeopathy has very good results from PROMs (Patient Reported Outcome Measures), whereby patients themselves report how much better they feel after getting homeopathic treatment for a condition.

But their views are arrogantly dismissed by the so-called "medical establishment," which views homeopathy in a very critical light.

If someone is made to feel better by a treatment, what does it matter how that is achieved? For one thing, homeopathy does not feed into the gigantic money pit of establishment medicine and Big Pharma – which helps explain the vociferous criticisms from the usual suspects.

In England, the National Health Service – which is increasingly falling under financial strain due to budget cuts and higher demand (keep this in mind, Americans who want a similar "free healthcare" system in our country) – could actually see some relief by incorporating homeopathic care. It is far cheaper and in many instances much more successful in the long run. But that's not likely to happen.

Online sources also bash homeopathy

In the U.S., as NaturalNews has reported, there has been an effort by the Obama Food and Drug Administration to regulate homeopathic medicine. In April 2015, the agency set a hearing to reevaluate their "regulatory framework" with regard to homeopathic medicine, because many homeopathic treatments are sold over the counter (and that cuts out Big Pharma).

There is also extreme bias online, especially at Internet "encyclopedia" Wikipedia. In a lengthy public letter to Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales, in November 2014, Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, a leading spokesperson for homeopathy and founder of Homeopathic Educational Services, provided numerous examples of how the site got its information wrong regarding homeopathic care.

"Ultimately, at Wikipedia there is a certain substantial body of editors who embody 'pathological skepticism' and who do not allow good evidence from high-quality studies and meta-analyses published in high-impact journals to be included into the body of evidence for homeopathy just because they provide a positive spin to the subject," Ullman wrote. "On the other hand, these same editors allow references to non-peer-review sources, such as popular magazine and websites, when the information in these questionably valid sources is offensive to homeopathy."

The lack of accurate information about natural medicine out there makes summits like this one even more important.

Sources:

HippocraticPost.com

NaturalNews.com

TheGuardian.com

Science.NaturalNews.com