Allergies and Use of Homeopathy

Allergies

Modern medicine is rapidly evolving in many areas, however, more and more people are deciding for the use of homeopathy to fight against allergies. Homeopathy uses medicines that are adapted to the individual and tries to capture an overall health status of a person, not just the symptoms. Homeopath must consider the complexity of the sick person’s symptoms and compare them with similar symptoms, which could be caused by an individual substance in larger quantities.

Although many believe that allergies are mostly a problem of modern time, mankind has already faced them in the old civilizations like Egyptian. There are numerous historical records that talk about allergy to pollen, specific food and animal products. Some studies argue that the number of allergies is increasing due to environmental pollution, too stressful life and poorer quality of food and air. 40 percent of the population has the possibility of an allergic reaction to a substance that is otherwise harmless. Antihistamines and corticosteroids are effective drugs, but especially in the long-term use they have unpleasant side effects. The advantage of treating allergies with homeopathic medicines is the absence of side effects, which is particularly important for most vulnerable groups (children, elderly, pregnant women, athletes, nursing mothers). Homeopathic treatment of allergies is already recommended in the preventive phase; otherwise the use of powerful pharmaceutical drugs may be necessary. If there is no other option, homeopathy can also be used in the phase of simultaneous treatment with prescription. Homeopathic medicines are based on the assumption that the only effective medicine is the one that causes symptoms similar to the disease that should be treated.

Hay fever, caused by pollen is the most common health problem of people with tendencies to allergy. Typical symptoms of pollen allergy are red and watery eyes (conjunctivitis), sneezing, swollen mucous and nasal discharge. For the prevention or mitigation of hay fever, homeopaths recommend medicine which is a special blend of homeopathic allergens that cause allergy to pollen. This medicine is also appropriate when the first symptoms of hay fever occur. An important supplement to treat allergies is also a preparation of black currant, which has anti-inflammatory activity and stimulates the immune system. Herbal preparation is made from the tip of black currant. The young shoots of this plant contain a lot of embryonic tissue which has an effect on the adrenal gland and stimulates the secretion of cortisone. Cortisone is beneficial in reducing inflammatory processes in the body, which includes allergic reactions such as hay fever, conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, hives and eczema.

Homeopathy has a long history of successful allergies treatment and homeopaths have made important contributions to today’s understanding of allergies. Treatment with homeopathy can be used for many different types of allergies. It can also be used in milder and severe disease conditions, but it cannot be used for diseases which already led to irreversible damage. Official medicine does not recognize homeopathy as a useful and effective method of the disease treatment, but more and more individuals are choosing this type of treatment.

By Janette Verdnik

***Homeopathy has been proven by four meta analyses to be no more effective than a placebo. Always check with your personal physician before taking any alternative remedy as such remedies are unregulated and can contain dangerous ingredients. Homeopathy is not accepted by the mainstream medical community and should be used at your own risk.

Sources:
Live Science
Homeopathy Zone
Care 2

32 Responses to Allergies and Use of Homeopathy

  1. Nancy Herrmann April 12, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Homeopathy works so well, it really is the alternative medicine of the 21st century. Pharmaceuticals are so dangerous, their studies are such shams, it’s difficult to believe anything they report. So many medications have been recalled, why would you trust them? Of course, I would go to an ER if I had a life threatening problem, but since it’s been over 20 years since I’ve seen a doctor, I guess I’m a great case for using alternatives!

    Reply
    • Alan Henness April 15, 2014 at 3:36 am

      So, why aren’t studies of homeopathic products shams as well?

      Reply
  2. Nancy Herrmann April 12, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    It’s a great alternative to pharmaceuticals, since the stuff they put out there is so shoddily tested and dangerous. At least homeopathy has provings, with no monetary gain involved. Shameful all the recalls and deaths pharmaceuticals cause. Of course, I would go to the ER should I need to, but since I haven’t needed a doctor in over 20 years, I guess my alternative medicine is working just fine. Homeopathy is the medicine of the 21st century!

    Reply
  3. helps4hardtimes April 8, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    U R welcome. TX for opportunity to post this (Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Investigation as Non-Govt. Regulator of Advertising) showing that over 1,500 people don’t think it’s so funny, or ‘hilariously wrong’. You may want to share with your friends and family. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/58269

    Reply
  4. Laurie Willberg April 7, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    The Society of Homeopaths is not a product manufacturer. It’s already been established that the ASA has no legal authority and that it’s staffed by pharma cronies. It’s this kind of distorted spin that makes pseudoskeptic opinions so dismissable.

    Reply
  5. Laurie Willberg April 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Clinical and other trials have shown significant success in the Homeopathic treatment of not only allergies but allergic rhinitis. I have had allergies to pollens, horses, dogs, cats, etc. since I was a child. Although this was not the reason I sought Homeopathic treatment in the first place, those allergies disappeared along with my main complaint, so it is absolutely true that Homeopathy treats the patient and not the “named” diagnosis or complaint as it does not simply oppose or suppress “symptoms”.
    This type of result from Homeopathic treatment is not uncommon at all. It’s more the rule than the exception.

    Reply
    • Alan Henness April 7, 2014 at 2:27 pm

      Laurie Willberg said:

      Clinical and other trials have shown significant success in the Homeopathic treatment of not only allergies but allergic rhinitis.

      Please provide links to those clinical trials and please say whether your believe those trials are robust, independent and demonstrate specific and clinically significant results beyond placebo for homeopathy.

      Reply
      • Laurie Willberg April 7, 2014 at 2:47 pm

        It is not my job to do your homework, especially since you are not a health care practitioner and not responsible for patient outcomes, or even interested in treating your own health problems. Your dubious involvement with pseudoskeptics clinches the fact that you are only interested in argument and are arrogant enough to think that you are going to arbitrate the validity of information.
        You will have to find someone else naïve enough to play with you in your narrow sandbox.

        Reply
        • Alan Henness April 15, 2014 at 3:32 am

          You made the claim; you provide the evidence to back it up.

          Reply
  6. Alan Henness April 7, 2014 at 2:52 am

    Utterly misleading and irresponsible article.

    Reply
    • Nancy Herrmann April 12, 2014 at 2:25 pm

      Alan Henness, you seem pretty angry about homeopathy, why? There must be a reason you spend so much time and energy knocking it.

      Reply
      • Alan Henness April 12, 2014 at 2:39 pm

        Thanks for your diagnosis. There is a very good reason I – and others – do what I do. I hate to see people conned and misled by homeopaths and others making claims not backed by good evidence. But maybe that’s not something they can understand.

        Reply
  7. Alan Henness April 7, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    helps4hardtimes said:

    The recent article cited below (April 7, 2014) states that 20% of doctors in Scotland now have basic homeopathy training compared to only 1% fifteen years ago.

    I believe that figure originated in the same newspaper in an article in August 2000 and it is not clear exactly what the figure represents, but could simply mean that some junior doctors spent a short period of time at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital.

    Do you have anything newer and more reliable than a 15-year-old newspaper article?

    Anyway, whether that figure is correct or not, does not change the lack of any good evidence for homeopathy, does it?

    Reply
  8. Alan Henness April 7, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Indeed. Why wasn’t the Society of Homeopaths able to provide any good evidence for those conditions?

    Reply
  9. Laurie Willberg April 7, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Pseudoskeptics like Mr. Henness frequently make false statements about “lack of evidence”. Millions of patients and Homeopathic practitioners, including Homeopath/MDs and Naturopaths, daily disprove this unsubstantiated opinion.
    “Believing” where an article originated is not the same as substantiating it.

    Reply
  10. Alan Henness April 7, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    Laurie

    Indeed. Believing that homeopathy works isn’t the same as it actually working.

    But instead of the ad hominems and accusations, why not try to answer the question? Do you have a reliable source for up-to-date figures for Scottish GPs receiving training in homeopathy?

    Reply
  11. Laurie Willberg April 7, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    You speculated about the information without providing any concrete refutation. You accused a poster of providing incorrect information, so it’s up to you to prove your case. You are simply doubt peddling. Fail.

    Reply
  12. Alan Henness April 7, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    Laurie said:

    “You speculated about the information without providing any concrete refutation.”

    Correct. I questioned the information, saying quite clearly I believed it was a repeat of information that was now 15 years old. Now, do you have a reliable source that would settle the matter?

    “You accused a poster of providing incorrect information, so it’s up to you to prove your case.”

    No. As I said, I questioned the information. I hope you are able to understand the difference.

    “You are simply doubt peddling.”

    Well, if you don’t think any questions should ever be asked, Laurie…

    “Fail.”

    Er… no.

    Now, about this good evidence for homeopathy?

    And the next time you reply, please try to be civil.

    Reply
  13. Laurie Willberg April 7, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Someone linked to an ASA/advertising ruling on a product. What’s more telling is that the ASA is being critically scrutinized as a mouthpiece for pharma companies. Most people don’t realize that it’s not a government body and has no legal standing to enforce anything. It’s also telling that you set up the so-called Nightingale Collaboration to flog frivolous “complaints” about Homeopathic products as just another propaganda tool.
    Claiming that the Society of Homeopaths wasn’t “able to provide good evidence” shouldn’t fool anyone that you’re doing anything but trying to manufacture doubt.

    Reply
  14. Michael MacKay (@Michael5MacKay) April 7, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    Feel free to provide the good evidence that the Society of Homeopaths were unable or unwilling to do.

    Reply
  15. Alan Henness April 7, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Michael MacKay said:

    “Feel free to provide the good evidence that the Society of Homeopaths were unable or unwilling to do.”

    An interesting point. I never said they were unwilling to, though, but what we do know what they were able to provide wasn’t up to the ASA’s required standards and that they don’t appear to have contested the adjudication.

    Reply
  16. helps4hardtimes April 8, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    A little something more about the ASA: ASA the Truth Alyssa Burns-Hill, PhD Spills

    Reply
  17. Alan Henness April 8, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    Thanks for posting that – it’s hilariously wrong, isn’t it?

    Reply
  18. Nancy Herrmann April 12, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Great movie! It is sad how they misrepresented themselves. The ASA seems more like obstructionist.

    Reply
  19. Laurie Willberg April 12, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    “This situation (ASA) should not be allowed to continue”. The ASA is a sham obviously being manipulated to serve 3rd party interests and definitely not the public’s.
    Henness is merely defending his role in this kangaroo process.

    Reply
  20. Alan Henness April 12, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    I see you’re still clueless about the ASA.

    Reply
  21. Laurie Willberg April 15, 2014 at 5:01 am

    There isn’t a single published study on anything that doesn’t call for more research. Your attempt to armchair quarterback research fails.

    Reply
  22. Alan Henness April 15, 2014 at 5:08 am

    Well, that’s not entirely correct, of course, but that is the way science works after all: all conclusions are provisional.

    I may be wrong, but Nancy seemed to be suggesting all these studies provided good evidence for homeopathy (she is a homeopath, after all). The first one certainly doesn’t. Perhaps you’d like to give the conclusions of the others she cites? That can easily be done whether in an armchair or not.

    However, perhaps you can say what research is currently being undertaken by homeopaths to rectify that situation?

    Reply
  23. Alan Henness April 15, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Nancy, people I’m sure are capable of reading the whole paper for themselves, rather than your selected quotes. I could have done that as well:

    “The weight of the presented evidence will probably not be sufficient for most people to decide definitely one way or the other.”

    However, do you agree with their conclusion or not – where they say:

    “not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions”

    …for the reasons they gave?

    Let’s now look at the conclusion of the authors of the second paper in your list:

    “The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.”[1]

    Note the second sentence. Do you agree with the Linde et al. conclusion?

    References:
    1 Linde, K, N Clausius, G Ramirez, D Melchart, F Eitel, L V Hedges, and W B Jonas. “Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials.” Lancet 350, no. 9081 (September 20, 1997): 834–43.

    Reply
  24. Alan Henness April 15, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Yes, Nancy, I quoted the conclusion in full, rather than cherry-picking as you’ve just done.

    Now, do you agree with *all* of their conclusion – not just your cherry-picked sentence?

    Reply
  25. Alan Henness April 15, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    LOL!

    If you believe the ASA is a ‘kangaroo organization’ [sic] then you’ll need to tell us your reasoning and evidence: you made the claim; you back it up. Simple, really.

    Reply
  26. Laurie Willberg April 15, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    “Alyssa Spills All” video posted does it better than I ever could LOL
    Simple and accurate, really.

    Reply

Your Thoughts?

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Quantcast