Chicken pox

Cause, Signs, Symptoms, Treatment, Cure

Chicken pox - CAUSE

Chicken pox is caused by varicella-zoster virus, a type of herpes virus. The virus spreads through the air via infected droplets emitted from the nose or mouth while coughing or sneezing. Touching the fluid from a chicken pox blister can also spread the disease. Chicken pox is contagious for approximately seven days during a person’s period of infection. Contagiousness begins about two days before symptoms appear and continues until all blisters have formed scabs. Doctors recommend keeping the infected person isolated from others during those seven days.
Chicken Pox Sign and Symptoms

Typically, chicken pox begins with a low fever, headache, rash, and a general feeling of sickness, or malaise. The rash, which usually covers the face, scalp, and trunk of the body, starts as red bumps but quickly develops into small blisters. The rash and the blisters are extremely itchy. As the disease progresses, the blisters break open and form scabs, which fall off after about one to two weeks. The incubation period—the time between initial infection and the first appearance of symptoms—is approximately two weeks.
Chicken pox - TREATMENT & HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES

Antim tart., Rhus tox, Kali mur., Pulsatilla, Aconite, Ars-alb, Apis, Belladona, Sulphur etc are known to work in cases of chickenpox.

Chicken pox - CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT

Treatment of chicken pox is usually limited to bed rest, acetaminophen for relief of fever and discomfort, and measures that soothe the itching, including lukewarm baths and application of topical medicines such as calamine lotion. Excessive scratching can cause infection of blisters, which can lead to scarring. Acyclovir, an antiviral drug, is used to treat severe cases of chicken pox, particularly in patients with a weakened immune system.

REFERENCE WORKS

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 14th ed, McGraw-Hill

Davidson's Principles and Practise of Medicine, 17th ed, 1996, Churchill Livingstone

SICKLE CELL DISEASE

The sickle cell diseases are a group of disorders that have in common the propensity of the red blood cells to become deformed when oxygen tension in the blood is lowered, causing anemia, occlusion of blood vessels by misshapen cells, and various associated clinical consequences, including death. In sickle cell disease, a mutation of the beta-globin gene results in the substitution of valine for glutamic acid in the sixth amino acid of the chain, producing a hemoglobin, designated hemoglobin S, that has less solubility than does normal hemoglobin A. Inheriting one gene for hemoglobin S, together with a normal gene, results in the formation of red cells that contain approximately 40 percent of the abnormal hemoglobin and 60 percent of the normal hemoglobin, an essentially harmless state that is designated as sickle cell trait. But if the gene inherited together with the sickle gene is not normal, then the sickle cell disease may develop. The most common hemoglobin that interacts with sickle hemoglobin is hemoglobin C, and the ß-thalassemia (beta-thalassemia) mutation also interacts with the sickle gene by restricting the formation of normal hemoglobin.

The sickle gene, and genes that interact with it, are common in a number of different populations, but the highest gene frequencies are observed in Africa. The gene is also found in southern Europe, the Middle East, and India. A single dose of the sickle gene provides protection against malaria. Since malaria was a major cause of death in Africa, persons who carried the sickle gene had a survival advantage over those who did not. Thus, the number of persons carrying this mutation has tended to increase generation after generation in areas where malaria was a major killer. Among African Americans, approximately 7.8 percent are carriers of the sickle mutation, that is, they have sickle cell trait; while 2.3 percent have hemoglobin C trait (one copy of the hemoglobin C gene); and0.8 percent have ß-thalassemia trait.

Although a single copy of the hemoglobin S gene is quite harmless, if a person inherits two copies of the hemoglobin S genes, he or she will have sickle cell disease. If one hemoglobin S gene and one hemoglobin C gene are inherited, the patient has hemoglobin S-C disease. Coinheritance of the beta-thalassemia and sickle hemoglobin result in sickle cell thalassemia. Patients with these three disorders have a similar clinical disease. Anemia occurs as a result of the rapid destruction of red blood cells. The red cells may have the shape of sickles, hence the term "sickle cell disease." However, the cells may assume may other forms. The misshapen red cells occlude blood vessels and cause pain and even tissue death.

In small children, one of the great problems incident to sickle cell disease is infections. If these are treated promptly, most children with sickle cell disease survive into adult life. One of the most characteristic manifestations of the disease in adults and older children is "pain crises." These occur at regular intervals, often at a time of stress, and may cause frequent hospitalizations and varying degrees of dependence upon pain-killing drugs. As patients with the sickle cell disease grow older they begin to suffer from the results of accumulated damage in small blood vessels all through the body. Dysfunction of the lungs, kidneys, and heart are common. Strokes may occur. Interruption of the blood supply to bones may result in areas of bone death, particularly in the hips.

Although sickle cell disease is a disorder that has been better understood and studied in more detail than most other disorders, treatment is still very unsatisfactory. Prenatal diagnosis can be carried out quite easily and very reliably, and parents are provided with the option of terminating the pregnancy. Antibiotics and immunization programs have drastically reduced the mortality rate among young children. Transfusion of red blood cells improves the flow properties of blood and may ameliorate the symptoms. Hydroxyurea has been administered to increase the amount of fetal hemoglobin, a hemoglobin that does not interact with sickle hemoglobin. This treatment has met with some success.

The disease is cured by bone marrow transplantation, a procedure with a relatively high risk, even in those patients in whom a match can be found. Ultimately the disease may be treated by putting a normal beta-globin gene into a stem cell of the patient, and then transplanting that patient with his or her own transduced cells, but there are many barriers to implementing such a strategy. Because stem cells do not divide often, they are relatively resistant to many gene-transfer methods. It is not enough to put a normal globin gene in the cell; the abnormal globin gene needs to be inactivated. There is also a tendency for normal human cells to shut off the function of foreign genes that are implanted in them. It is likely that these technical obstacles to gene therapy will be overcome eventually, and that the treatment of this group of diseases will give better results in the future.

What is Stammering?

Stammering is usually perceived as being a speech disorder. Stammering is actually an extremely complex condition involving much more than repetitions of sounds, prolongations of syllables and other "disfluencies". Stammering affects the person as a whole and can more adequately be described as a combination of speech, communication and behavioural disorders.

Stammering is often compared to an iceberg and speech disorders only represent the tip of the stammering iceberg.

The bulk of the stammering iceberg lies below the surface and represents the communication and behavioural disorders. A whole set of unusual communication patterns and behaviours work hand in hand with the speech "disfluencies" that non-stammerers inevitably notice:

· Stammerers tend to avoid eye contact with their listeners. They prob

ably do so because they don’t want to see their listener’s reaction to their stammering.

· Stammerers often have irregular breathing patterns and try to speak with little or no air in their lungs. Some stammerers even try to speak while inhaling.

·

Some stammerers avoid or try to avoid stammering by resorting to word substitution: If they feel they will stammer on a particular word, they will replace it with another word with a similar

meaning. Some stammerers are so successful in using this technique that nobody, not even their spouse, knows that they stammer.

· Stammerers often resort to the use of useless words such as “you know”, “let’s see” etc. They feel that these junk words will give them a running start that will help them successfully rush through a feared word.

· Stammerers tend to react to stress by tightening the muscles of their vocal cords. This probably explains why stammering often becomes worse when under s

tress.

· Many stammerers avoid stammering by avoiding speaking altogether.

In addition to these unusual communication patterns and behaviours, many stammerers also have negative feelings and perceptions about their stammering and about themselves:

· Shame: stammerers are often ashamed of their stammering and often go to great length to try to hide it.

·

Guilt: stammerers often feel guilty about not being able to achieve what they think they would be able to achieve if only they could speak fluently.

· Frustration: stammerers often feel frustrated by their inability to communicate effectively with other people.

· Lowered self-esteem: stammering often induces a feeling of worthlessness.

All these hidden elements of the stammering phenomenon tend to reinforce the speech disorders and a speech therapy focusing only on the speech mechanism is bound to fail. Only a holistic and comprehensive stammering therapy addressing each and every aspect o

f the phenomenon can succeed in totally eliminating stammering from your life. This is something you should keep in mind when choosing a therapy for stammering.

My Child Stammers

It is generally estimated that 20% of children will stammer at one point or another. Most children outgrow their stammering and become perfectly fluent speakers.

Stammering is however, chronic in 1% of young children. If your child shows signs of disfluencies that last for more than a month, you should seek the advice of a speec

h-language therapist. The longer you wait, the more difficult it will be to successfully eliminate stammering.

It is important to avoid making the child more aware of the stammering than he/she already is, and the advice of a speech-language therapist should be sought first, without the child. The speech-language therapist will then want to meet with the child for a direct assessment of any speech disorders. This will be handled in an informal manner to avoid any anxiety in the child.

The therapy itself is usually not carried out directly by the speech-language th

erapist but rather by the parents. Slight changes in the way the parents speak and behave with the child can increase the child's confidence and the ability to speak fluently. The speech-language therapist will discuss methods that can be done to achieve this.

Comprehensive Stuttering Therapy (Phillip J. Roberts) explains in details how parents can positively influence the speech of their child and we recommend that you read this book before meeting with the speech-language therapist. This book also provides in-depth information about stammering and this can help you understand the needs of your child.

Tips

It is not your fault that your child stammers. You can however, greatly help diminish and/or eliminate the stammering by slightly altering the way you speak and communicate with your child and by enhancing the child’s self confidence.

1 - Conspiracy of silence should be avoided. When a child stammers, parents and other family members are often so embarrassed that they pretend that the stammering did not really happen. The child feels helpless and alone with the stammering and this only makes matters worse. You should therefore try to speak with the child about the stammering. Make sure you don't show your anxiety. You should discuss stammering in a casual and matter-of-fact way to avoid making the child self-conscious.

2 - Whe

n talking with the child, avoid using words such as 'stuttering' or 'stammering', 'SLP' or 'speech-language pathologist'. A child doesn't understand the meaning of these words and will perceive them as frightening. This will unnecessarily increase the child’s awareness of the speech disorder. Instead, you should use words that are part of the child’s vocabulary. For example, refer to 'stuck words'.

3 - Don't tell the child to "speak slowly", to "take it easy" or to "take a deep breath". If you do this, the child will lose confidence in his/her ability to speak and this will increase the stammering. You should instead speak slowly in an unhurried way. Children tend to mimic their parents and will speak more slowly as you slow your own speech down. Use short sentences that a child can easily understand.

4 - If your child asks you a question, pause for a few seconds before answering. Again, the child wi

ll mimic you and take his/her time when speaking.

5 - When the child speaks to you, make sure you look at the child and give the child your full attention. Stammering usually increases when the child has the impression that the listener is not listening. Use facial expressions to show your child that you are listening and that the child is getting his/her message across.

6 - Maintain eye contact with the child, even while he/she is stammering.

7 - Be patient with your child. Don't show that you are upset or worried by the stammering. Show the child that you accept him/her just the way he/she is.

8 - Do not interrupt the child when speaking. A child is more relaxed and less likely to stammer if it is known that he/she won't be interrupted. Make sure that all family members take turns speaking.

9 - A child doesn't like being pressured with questions and this is especially true with children who stammer. Avoid asking the child questions and let the child speak about what he/she wants to talk about.

10 -

Praise your child each time something is done well. This will increase the child’s confidence.

What is stuttering?

Stammering and stuttering both mean exactly the same thing. The word stammering is commonly used in the British Isles while the word stuttering is preferred in North America, Australia and New Zealand.

Strange Facts about Stammering

Statistics

1% of the adult population stammers. Men account for 80% of all adult stammerers.

Closet stammerers

Stammerers o

ften resort to word replacement in order to avoid stammering. When a stammerer feels he will stammer on a particular word, he often tries to find an alternative word with a similar meaning. Some stammerers are so successful in using this technique that no one, not even their spouse, knows that they are stammerers. Stammerers who successfully manage to hide their stammering by using word replacements are called 'closet stammerers'. Although they do

n't actually stammer, these 'closet stammerers'

nevertheless suffer greatly from their speech disorder. Scanning ahead for feared words is stressful and the replacement word is usually not as adequate of a choice as the stammerer originally intended. Closet stammerers often order a pizza when they want to eat a burger or compromise their opinions.

Reaction to stress

We all react to stress in different ways but nearly all stammerers have one thing in common when it comes to reacting to stress: they tighten the muscles of their vocal cords. This explains why s

tammering becomes worse when a stammerer is under pressure.

Changing name

Stammerers often have extreme difficulties saying their own names. This is extremely embarrassing and some stammerers have even resorted to having their names changed to a name they can easily say. Once the name has been legally changed, the stammerer often finds out that he/she can now say the old name with ease but severely blocks on the new name.

Singing, sp

eaking in unison, whispering...

Stammerers usually don't stammer when they sing, speak in unison, whisper, talk to a pet or speak to a small child.

Famous Stammerers

Did you kno

w that during World War II, Great Britain was lead to victory by two stammerers: King George VI and his Prime Minister Winston Churchill?

If you stammer

, you are definitely in very good company and you shouldn't let stammering stop you from leading a successful life. Here are a few famous stammerers:

Aristotle
Robert Boyle
Lewis Carrol
King Charles I
Charles Darwin
Demosthenes
Scatman John
King Louis II
Moses

Marylin Monroe
Emperor Napoleon the First
Isaac Newton
Theodore Roosevelt
Virgil

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a cure for stammering?

Stammering is not a disease caused by a virus or bacteria. Stammering is a condition and as such cannot

be 'cured'. The fact that stammering cannot be cured doesn't mean that nothing can be done about it. Speech therapy can greatly improve your fluency and in many cases virtually eli

minate stammering. Look at the stammering therapies we selected for you.

What is a PWS?

PWS is an acronym meaning Person Who Stutters or Person Who Stammers. Many stammerers feel comfortable with the terms stammerer and stammering or their American English equivalents stutterer and stuttering but others prefer the politically correct term PWS.

What causes stammering?

There is no clear scientific explanation regarding the causes of stammering. Stammering is probably a combination of genetic, physical and psychological factors:

- Stammering tends to run in families and you are twice as likely to stammer if one of your parents stammers.

- Stammering seems to be partly due to the unique way stammerers physically react to stress by tensing the muscles of their larynx whereas non-stammerers usually react to stress by tensing some other muscles.

- Stammering induces negative feelings such as shame, guilt, lowered confidence and self-esteem. These negative feelings in turn tend to make stammering worse.

Do stammerers have a lower IQ?

On average, stammerers have the same IQ as non-stammerers. Stammerers are sometimes wrongly perceived as being less intelligent than non-stammerers. This is mainly due to the fact that stammerers often resort to word substitution: when a stammerer feels he will block on a specific word, he often uses an alternative word. The alternative word is often less appropriate and in some cases not appropriate at all. The listener might get the false impression that the stammerer suffers from mental confusion.

S

tammering Therapies

Information about the best therapies presently available to stammerers can be found on this page. Stammering can basically be treated with four different therapeutic approaches:

Stammering Self-Therapy
Electronic devices
Speech Language Pathologist
Speech Clinics

There are two things you should consider when choosing a stammering therapy:

1. Stammering cannot be eliminated overnight. If you have been living with stammering for

years or even decades it won’t go away that easily. Whatever therapy you choose, it will probably take several weeks or months before stammering can be effectively controlled. Claims that you can “cure” stammering in a few days should be looked at with extreme caution.

2. Stammering is not only a speech disorder but also a communication and behavioural disorder. Stammering can be compared to an iceberg and the speech disorder only represents the tip of the stammering iceberg. The bulk of the iceberg is made of the communication and behavioural disorders as well as all the negative feelings such as shame, guilt, embarrassment etc. A therapy that exclusively focuses on the speech disorder is bound to fail over the long run. An effective therapy should

be based on a holistic approach and should address every aspect of stammering: the speech disorder (the "disfluencies") as well as the communication and behavioural disorders and negative feelings associated with stammering. See What is Stammering? for more information.

Stammering Self-Therapies

Self-therapy is an affordable and effective way to treat stammering and this is definitely where you should start.

To get started, all you need to do is invest a few pounds and commit yourself to spending 30 minu

tes to one hour a day doing simple exercises. You will probably notice significant improvements in your fluency within a few weeks and should be able to eliminate stammering within a few months.

We have chosen two self-therapy stammering programs for you:

Comprehensive Stuttering Therapy (Phillip J. Roberts):

Comprehensive Stuttering Therapy is probably the most comprehensive and most effective self-therapy presently available to stammerers. It includes 29 exercises addressing every single element of the stammering phenomenon: the “disfluencies” as well as the negative feelings and behaviours associated with stammering. By going t

hrough these exercises, the stammerer will gradually improve his fluency and alter the destructive feelings and behaviours that promote stammering. The end result is a self sustainable fluency lasting for a lifetime. Click here to access Phillip J. Robert's web site.

Understanding & Controlling Stuttering (William D. Parry)

Understanding & Controlling Stuttering is another excellent self-therapy program. William Parry developed a new theory to explain stammering. According to his theory, stammering results from a neurological confusion between the voice and the Valsalva mechanism (a set of muscles that we tighten when exerting effor

t). The book then suggests a technique that eliminates stammering by controlling the Valsalva mechanism. Click here to access William D. Parry's web site.

It is very likely that self-therapy is all you will need to achieve fluency. If you still stammer after trying self-therapy, you can then consider other therapeutic options. In any case, reading these books will provide you with in-depth knowledge about stammering, and this knowledge will be extremely useful when visiting a speech-language pathologist or attending an intensive stammering program in a speech clinic.

If one of your relatives stammers, we strongly recommend that you read these books. Many stammerers feel that they are left alone to struggle helplessly with stammering. They wish they could talk about it with their friends or relatives but they feel so embarrassed by their dis

fluencies that it is difficult for them to take the first step. These books provide valuable information about stammering and will help you understand the feelings and frustrations experienced by stammerers. After reading these books, it will be easier for you to take the initiative and talk about stammering with your relatives. You will then be able to provide the support the stammerer needs and suggest a therapy to follow.

If your young child stammers, you will definitely find these books useful as they will help you to understand stammering as well as your child's inner feelings. Besides, Comprehensive Stuttering Therapy (Phillip J. Roberts) explains in details what parents can do to help their child become fluent.

Electronic devices
Fluency enhancing devices are based on DAF (Delayed Auditory Feedback) and FAF (Frequency-Shifting Auditory Feedback). The electronic device picks up your voice from a microp

hone, delays the sound for a fraction of a second (in the case of DAF) or shifts the frequency (in the case of FAF) and feeds your voice back through earphones.

DAF and FAF can instantly reduce and in most cases eliminate stammering with minimal efforts from your side. But you should keep in mind that DAF and FAF should ideally be used in combination with a comprehensive stammering self-therapy or visits to a speech pathologist. As explained earlier, stammering is a communication and behavioural problem and you will need to change your communication patterns, your attitudes and your way of life. You will also need to learn fluency enhancing techniques and to synchronize breathing with your speech.

DAF and FAF are not a substitute to a holistic approach to stammering but can certainly help you to successfully follow a comprehensive stammering therapy. DAF and FAF will help you slow down. You will therefore be more in control of your speech and it will be easier for you to put the fluency techniques that you learned from the self-therapy or from the speech pathologist into practice. After a while, you should be able to speak fluently without the help of electronic devices.

DAF and FAF devices can be ordered from Casa Futura Technologies.

Speech Language Pathologist:
Another way to treat stammering is to visit a speech-language pathologist. Visiting a SLP is costly both in terms of time and money and you will probably want to spend some time reading about stammering before your first visit. This will help you define your goals and make your discussions with the SLP more fruitful. We recommend that you read about the two self- help stammering therapies described above.

During your first visit to the speech-language pathologist, you should make sure that the person is experienced and comfortable in treating stammering and that a holistic approach will be used.

Speech Clinics

Several speech clinics provide intensive therapy programs for stammering. Click here to access our list of speech clinics. Please note that we do not endorse any particular organisation and this list is only provided to help you locate a speech clinic. We recommend that you keep in mind the guidelines given earlier about selecting a speech clinic: 1) Stammering cannot be eliminated overnight; this means that an intensive therapy program for stammering should be followed-up by a therapy of some sort. 2) Only a holistic approach can effectively reduce and eliminate stammering and you should make sure the speech clinic provides a comprehensive therapy addressing every aspect of the stammering phenomenon.

HOMEOPATHY IN DEPRESSION

Depression affects about 15% of the population at some or the other point in life. Although it is one of the most common ailments, it is also the most ignored, probably due to lack of awareness among us. Most episodes resolve within a few days, but when a depressed / irritable mood or a lack of normal interest or pleasure persists for more than 2 weeks or if such episodes occur too often, it needs treatment.
Usually, one or more of the following symptoms are seen* change in appetite plus change in weight* sleeplessness or excessive sleep* tiredness* feelings of sadness, wothlessness, guilt* inability ot concentrate &/or make decisions* repeated thoughts of death or suicide* vague physical aches, pains or other complainsOn the other hand, some people might show extremely maniac behavior like restlessness, physical overactivity, excessive talkativeness, excessive involvement in risky activities, delusions etc.
Though depression affects a large percentage of the population, the treatment is difficult because the drugs currently available are addictive & habit forming besides having a lot of side- effects. Here homeopathy offers the best solution because the drugs selected are based on a person's individual constitution & hence more accurate. Besides there is no addiction or side-effects. Recently some new homeopathic medicines / remedies made from flowers-the Bach flower remedies are being used to treat depression with better results.

HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT HAIR FALL

Before we get on to the causes & treatment of hairfall, let us learn a few basic facts about our hair. As most of us know, hair grows from a structure called hair follicle which is situated in the skin of the scalp.So the number of follicles & the health of the follicles determines the health of our hair.Each hair follicle has it's own cycle. From the follicle arises a single strand of hair which grows for about 3-4 years after which it is shed. The follicle then rests for a few months after which a new strand of hair grows from it. We have millions of follicles on our scalp & the number varies from individual to individual which is unalterable with medicines. Also if the follicles have been destroyed, as happens if the hair is vigorously plucked or from vigorous combing no hair will grow from it & no medicine can revive a dead follicle. Medicines only help to prevent fast shedding of the hair or accelerate the growth rate if it is very slow in some people. Hair grows at the rate of about a millimetre each day & the growth is faster in summer & slower in winter. Also, it is normal to lose about 50-100 hair per day & should be no cause of concern.Among the causes of excessive hairfall, we can divide them into medical & non-medical causes.Medical causes could be certain hormonal diseases like thyroid, acute infections like typhoid, after-effects of antibiotic intake, scalp infections like lice, dandruff, ringworm, certain treatments like chemotherapy in patients of cancer etc.Among non-medical reasons, the most important of course is diet. Improper nutrition is the most common cause of hairfall. the present generation practically gorges on fast foods & junk food which do not provide enough nutrition. This is detrimental to the health of the follicles. Other causes are pollution, lack of proper scalp hygiene due to insufficient washing of hair, excessive washing of the hair, blow drying the hair, vigorous combing of the hair, use of harmful chemicals as in hair dyes, certain harmful shampoos, overexposure to the sun, lack of sufficient rest, stress etc.

HOMEOPATHY IN HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE (HYPERTENSION)

A blood pressure above 130/80 in any person needs to be invesigated & if necessary treated. The cause of high blood pressure cannot be traced in 95% of the patients. However in any patient with 3-4 consecutive readings above 130/80 within a span of 2-3 weeks needs to be investigated for the cause of high blood pressure especially if he/she is below 30 years of age. One also needs to know if the patient has been on any medication & whether there has been any significant change in weight in the last few months. Routine tests which must be done include an electrocardiogram(ECG), Chest X-Ray, blood tests for kidney function, diabetes & cholesterol. Then if felt necessary, some tests for some hormonal studies may need to be done though it is not very common. Patients whose reports are all normal & where the lower value of BP is below 100 salt restriction, exercises & weight reduction if necessary is often advised with the aim of avoiding medcation. This if done regularly often avoids the need for medicines. However for higher BP or for patients in whom the above measured fail to reduce the BP, medication is necessary. In patients who are on high doses of BP reducing allopathic medicines or in patients whose lower value is above 120, allopathic medicines may need to be continued with homeopathic medicines for sometime. Later as the BP lowers, the dose of allopathic medicines can be tapered.Commonly used homeopathic medicines / remedies for high blood pressure / hypertension are: Rauwolfia serpentina, Natrum Sulph, Crataegus, Aurum mur, Kalmia, Strophanthus, Cactus grandifolius etc.

HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT OF ASTHMA

Bronchial Asthma is very simply, a hypersensitivity of the respiratory tract to a number of things.During an asthma attack, the windpipe (known as the bronchus in medical terms) goes into spasms causing it's narrowing & making it difficult to breathe.In a person who is a known asthamtic, an attack of asthma could be triggered off by many things like strong smells, some food items (especially refrigerated &oily food),mental stress, cold/wet weather,some medicines etc. Very often asthma is hereditary & in some females there also occurs something called pregnancy induced asthma, the cause of which is exactly unknown. Allopathic treatment of asthma is directed towards dilatation of the airway using bronchodilators.Besides, steroids are used which are excellent for immediate relief in very severe attacks, but their repeated or prolonged use could be extremely harmful.Homeopathic treatment is directed at first decreasing the frequency & severity of attacks.Then it slowly tries to wean the patient off allopathic drugs & finally aims for a permanent cure. The duration of treatment could be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years & the cure rate is 90-95%.commonly used homeopathic medicines / remedies for bronchial asthma: In case of asthma, individualisation of each patient by taking a detailed case history is necessary for treatment & cure.

What is Cancer?

Body cells die and are regularly replaced. This is a normal healthy process. Each cell contains a 'code' which instructs it how to multiply and when it should die. When something goes wrong with this process, cells can begin to develop abnormally. In the healthy body, the immune system works to identify these abnormal cells and destroy them before they proliferate. However, when abnormal cell growth is not controlled by the immune system, it may spread into surrounding tissue and damage organs, blood vessels, nerves and other body systems.
While research strongly supports a genetic component to cancer, it is also becoming increasingly clear that environmental triggers and circumstances are instrumental in whether or not cancer will develop. In other words, a genetic predisposition to cancer will only be translated into cancer itself if there is exposure to cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) or circumstances which precipitate the cancer. While the exact causes and dynamics of cancer are not yet fully understood, it is well known that exposure to certain toxins like tobacco smoke, industrial chemicals or to radiation and ultraviolet sunlight can play a major role. Risk of cancer may also be linked to certain hormones, stress and even to some well-known and commonly used food additives.

Just as there are many different potential causes of cancer, so are there many different types of cancer - from hormone related cancers like prostate cancer, breast cancer, cancer of the cervix and testicular cancer, to cancers of the blood like leukemia and lymphoma. There is no doubt that cancer is becoming a growing epidemic and has been identified as the second most common cause of death in the UK and USA.

A diagnosis of cancer can be a devastating blow. Even the word strikes fear into many hearts and may be seen as a death sentence. These days, however, this is not necessarily the case. As researchers find out more about how cancer develops and how best to manage it, many patients are being successfully treated and even cured of cancer.
How is cancer usually treated?

The three main options for treating cancer in conventional medicine are surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The most appropriate treatment or treatment combination will depend on the type of cancer, the location, the stage of the disease and whether it has spread around the body.

Removing the tumor or affected area by surgery can prevent spread of the cancer and is often the option that will be most likely to cure the disease completely. Surgery isn’t always appropriate however, for example, if the cancer has already spread to different parts of the body or for certain types of cancer which are not localized, like leukemia (cancer of the white blood cells).

Radiation therapy may be used alone or after surgery in order to destroy any remaining cancer tissue that was not removed. This treatment is used locally. The radiation is focused on a specific area where it will kill cells which are dividing rapidly - like cancer cells.
Chemotherapy is the third treatment option. This is best suited for cancer that is present in several places in the body or types that aren’t effectively treated by surgery or radiation. Chemotherapy uses drugs to kill rapidly dividing cells (like cancer cells) and this is the reason for the numerous side-effects of this treatment.

While conventional medicine has made many advances made in the treatment of cancer, critics point out that while the treatment is often 'successful', the side effects frequently result in further damage to the system. The mortality rate of cancer patients due to the side effects of treatment as well as hospital acquired infections is seen by many as unacceptably high and there is no doubt that, while it can be successful at times, conventional cancer treatment is also unavoidably harsh and potentially harmful to the system. For this reason, medical research is ongoing in a search for more effective, yet less harmful cancer treatments. The role of traditional herbs, complementary therapies and natural remedies in the treatment and prevention of cancer is also increasingly a topic of research, often with very promising results.

How can Back Pain be treated ?

Medically Prescribed drugs such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and muscle relaxants may relieve mild-to-moderate back pain.

Physical therapy:This may include applications of heat or cold, or gentle massage performed by a physical therapist. Once the pain subsides, your therapist can design an exercise program to improve your flexibility, strengthen your back and abdominal muscles and improve your posture.

Electrical Stimulation:Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may help stop pain by blocking nerve signals from reaching your brain. A physical therapist places electrodes on your skin near the area of your pain. TENS may relieve pain in your leg due to inflammation or compression of nerves in your back.

Chiropractic: This treatment involves manipulation and massage of your spine and back muscles to relieve mild-to-moderate pain.

Acupuncture: An acupuncturist inserts hair-thin needles under your skin. The needles usually stay in for 15 to 30 minutes. The insertion causes little or no pain. Expect to have several sessions. Research suggests pain relief may come from the release of endorphins, your body's natural painkillers.

Symptoms of Gastric (Stomach) Cancer

In the early stages of stomach cancer, a patient may have very few symptoms. Symptoms may include:

Indigestion and stomach discomfort A bloated feeling after eating Mild nausea Loss of appetite Heartburn Patients may not recognize these symptoms as serious and may not go to the doctor for a long time. A gastric tumor can grow very large before it causes other, more apparent symptoms.
As the disease progresses to more advanced stages, symptoms that may include:
Blood in the stool (feces) Vomiting Weight loss (unexplained) Stomach pain Jaundice (yellowing of eyes and skin) Ascites (build-up of fluid in the abdomen) Difficulty swallowing (back to top)Causes of Gastric (Stomach) Cancer The exact cause of stomach cancer is unknown, but a number of conditions can increase the risk of the disease. These risk factors include:

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection of the stomach. This bacterium produces substances that weaken the stomach's protective mucus and make it more susceptible to the damaging effects of acid and pepsin, as well as produce more acid. Chronic gastritis (inflammation of the stomach) Age (highest risk is in persons over age 50) Being male A diet high in salted, smoked, or poorly preserved foods and low in fruits and vegetables Pernicious anemia Smoking cigarettes Intestinal metaplasia Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or gastric polyps A mother, father, sister, or brother who has had stomach cancer (back to top)Diagnosing Gastric (Stomach) Cancer In addition to a complete medical history and physical examination, diagnostic tests for stomach cancer may include the following:

Fecal occult blood test. This simple exam checks for hidden (occult) blood in the stool. It involves placing a very small amount of stool on a special card, which is then tested in the physician's office or sent to a laboratory.

Upper GI (gastrointestinal) series (also called barium swallow). This is a diagnostic test that examines the organs of the upper part of the digestive system: the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum (the first section of the small intestine). A fluid called barium (a metallic, chemical, chalky liquid used to coat the inside of organs so they will show up on an x-ray) is swallowed. X-rays are then taken to evaluate the digestive organs.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (also called EGD or upper endoscopy). An EGD (upper endoscopy) is a procedure that allows the physician to examine the inside of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum. A thin, flexible, lighted tube, called an endoscope, is guided into the mouth and throat, then into the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum. The endoscope allows the physician to view the inside of this area of the body, as well as to insert instruments through a scope for the removal of a sample of tissue for biopsy (if necessary).

Endoscopic ultrasound. This imaging technique uses sound waves to create a computer image of the inside of the esophagus and stomach. The endoscope is guided into the mouth and throat, then into the esophagus and the stomach. As in standard endoscopy, this allows the physician to view the inside of this area of the body, as well as insert instruments to remove a sample of tissue (biopsy). (back to top)Treating Gastric (Stomach) Cancer Specific treatment for gastric cancer will be determined by your physician based on:

age, overall health, and medical history The extent of the disease Your tolerance for specific medications, procedures, or therapies Expectations for the course of the disease based on the diagnosis and stage of the cancer Your personal preferences Treatment for gastric cancer may include:

Surgery

Most common treatment for stomach cancer, may be necessary to remove cancerous tissue, as well as nearby non-cancerous tissue. The most common operation is called gastrectomy. If part of the stomach is removed, it is called a subtotal or partial gastrectomy. If the entire stomach is removed, it is called a total gastrectomy.

Radiation therapy.

therapy uses high-energy x-rays to kill or shrink cancer cells.
Chemotherapy. Chemotherapy uses anti-cancer drugs to kill cancer cells. (back to top)Preventing Gastric (Stomach) Cancer Certain lifestyle changes can help decrease your risk of developing gastric and other types of cancer. These include:

A well-balanced diet that avoids salted or smoked foods, avoids excess starch, and includes sufficient daily fiber Proper food preparation and refrigeration Not smoking Use of alcohol in moderation Avoiding exposure to coal, nickel, or rubber processing

Mouth Diseases

Burning Mouth SyndromeBurning mouth syndrome is a fairly common disorder. People affected by it experience abnormal sensations of the mouth (burning sensation of the tongue) as well as alterations in taste and mouth texture. It is a poorly understood condition that most commonly affects post-menopausal females.
Although the cause of this disorder is not known, most of the evidence suggests that this is a minor (but annoying) problem with certain nerves (called sensory nerves) that supply information from the oral tissues, especially the tongue, roof of the mouth and lips, to the brain. This "misinformation" includes telling the brain that the mouth (especially the tongue) feels scalded ("burning" sensation), that bad tastes are present, or that the texture of the mouth is wrong (usually a "dry" feeling).

Much less frequently, burning tongue symptoms may be caused by oral yeast infection or certain rare types of anemia and these should be ruled out in order to make a diagnosis for burning mouth syndrome. If yeast infection of the mouth is suspected, it would have to be proven by doing a culture (swab) of the lining of the mouth. If yeast is present, the problem should be easily treated with antifungal medication.
Diagnosis of this condition can sometimes pose a problem because despite the presence of symptoms, when the mouth is examined, everything appears normal. This causes a great deal of confusion for the doctor who is not familiar with this condition. The best person to evaluate this problem would be an oral and maxillofacial pathologist.

There is no medically proven treatment for this condition, and none of the so-called "cures" for burning mouth have been shown to be any better than placebo ("sugar pill"). However, for about half of the people who get this problem, it goes away by itself after a period of time, although the amount of time varies from person to person and is unpredictable.
While it is an annoying condition, burning mouth syndrome typically is not progressive, does not represent a form of cancer, and cannot be transmitted to anyone else.

Mouth Diseases

Mucocele

represents a condition in which damage to one of the small salivary (spit) glands leads to the formation of a soft bump or a blister-like lesion in the mouth. This can occur on lips, under the tongue, or less commonly on the roof of the mouth. It is a common and harmless phenomenon, although it can be annoying for the patient.
Mucocele is probably caused by minor injury to the little tube, called a duct, that carries saliva from the salivary gland onto the surface of the mouth. The injury can be caused due to inadvertent trauma such as biting. When the injury occurs, the thick, mucus-type saliva produced by the damaged gland is released into the surrounding tissues instead of going into the mouth with the rest of the saliva. This often creates a clear or bluish bubble or blister. If the blister is poked at or further injured, bleeding can occur within the entrapped pool of saliva that would make it look red or purple.

A history of enlargement, breaking, and shrinkage is fairly common, and these lesions can be remarkably persistent. If untreated, these will often swell, break (like a water balloon), and heal over, only to swell again and repeat the cycle. This condition rarely goes away on its own. An oral surgeon usually has to remove the spilled saliva and affected gland in order to completely stop the process, but this is a rather minor procedure. The excised tissue should then be examined under the microscope to exclude the very small chance of some form of growth or tumor.

Classical homeopathy originated in the 19th century with Samuel Christian Friedrich Hahnemann (1755-1843) as an alternative to the standard medical practices of the day, such as phlebotomy or bloodletting। Opening veins to bleed patients, force disease out of the body, and restore the humors to a proper balance was a popular medical practice until the late19th century (Williams 2000: 265). Hahnemann rejected the notion that disease should be treated by letting out the offensive matter causing the illness. Instead, he argued that disease should be treated by helping the vital force restore the body to harmony and balance. He rejected other common medical practices of his day such as purgatives and emetics "with opium and mercury-based calomel" (ibid.: 145). In retrospect, Hahnemann's alternative medicine was more humane and less likely to cause harm than many of the conventional practices of his day.
Scientific medicine was developing in Hahnemann's time but homeopathy would not be part of that development. Scientific medicine is essentially materialistic. It is based on such disciplines as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry. While Hahnemann's methods involve empirical observation, his theory of disease and cure is essentially non-empirical and involves the appeal to metaphysical entities and processes.
Hahnemann put forth his ideas of disease and treatment in The Organon of Homeopathic Medicine (1810) and Theory of Chronic Diseases (1821). The term 'homeopathy' is derived from two Greek words: homeo (similar) and pathos (suffering). Hahnemann meant to contrast his method with the convention of his day of trying to balance "humors" by treating a disorder with its opposite (allos). He referred to conventional practice as allopathy. Even though modern scientific medicine bears no resemblance to the theory of balancing humors or treating disease with its opposite, modern homeopaths and other advocates of "alternative" medicine misleadingly refer to today's conventional physicians as allopaths (Jarvis 1994).
Classical homeopathy is generally defined as a system of medical treatment based on the use of minute quantities of remedies that in larger doses produce effects similar to those of the disease being treated. Hahnemann believed that very small doses of a medication could have very powerful healing effects because their potency could be affected by vigorous and methodical shaking (succussion). Hahnemann referred to this alleged increase in potency by vigorous shaking as dynamization. Hahnemann thought succussion could release "immaterial and spiritual powers," thereby making substances more active. "Tapping on a leather pad or the heel of the hand was alleged to double the dilution" (ibid.).
Dynamization was for Hahnemann a process of releasing an energy that he regarded as essentially immaterial and spiritual. As time went on he became more and more impressed with the power of the technique he had discovered and he issued dire warnings about the perils of dynamizing medicines too much. This might have serious or even fatal consequences, and he advised homeopaths not to carry medicines about in their waistcoat pockets lest they inadvertently make them too powerful. Eventually he even claimed that there was no need for patients to swallow the medicines at all; it was enough if they merely smelt them. (Campbell)
Two potency scales are in common use: the decimal, which proceeds by 1:10 steps, and the centesimal (1:100). Starting from the original "mother tincture" (in the case of a plant this is an alcoholic extract) a 1:10 or 1:100 dilution is made. This is succussed and the resulting solution is known as the first potency. This now serves as the starting point for the next step in dilution and succussion, which results in the second potency, and so on. The 1:10 potencies are usually indicated by x and the 1:100 by c; thus Pulsatilla 6c means the 6th centesimal potency of Pulsatilla, which has received six succussions and has a concentration of one part in a thousand billion. (Campbell)
Like most of his contemporaries, Hahnemann believed that health was a matter of balance and harmony, but for him it was the vital force, the spirit in the body, that did the balancing and harmonizing, that is, the healing.
Hahnemann claimed that most chronic diseases were caused by miasms and the worst of these miasms were the 'psora.' The evidence for the miasm theory, however, is completely absent and seems to have been the result of some sort of divine revelation (Campbell). The word 'miasm'
derives from the Greek and means something like "taint" or "contamination". Hahnemann supposed that chronic disease results from invasion of the body by one of the miasms through the skin. The first sign of disease is thus always a skin disorder of some kind (Campbell).
His method of treatment might seem very modern: Find the right drug for the illness. However, his medicines were not designed to help the body fight off infection or rebuild tissue, but to help the vital spirit work its magic. In fact, Hahnemann believed it is "inherently impossible to know the inner nature of disease processes and it was therefore fruitless to speculate about them or to base treatment on theories" (Campbell). His remedies were determined by the patient's symptoms, not by the supposed disease causing those symptoms.
homeopathic "laws"
Homeopaths refer to "the Law of Infinitesimals" and the "Law of Similars" as grounds for using minute substances and for believing that like heals like, but these are not natural laws of science. If they are laws at all, they are metaphysical laws, i.e., beliefs about the nature of reality that would be impossible to test by empirical means. Hahnemann's ideas did originate in experience. That he drew metaphysical conclusions from empirical events does not, however, make his ideas empirically testable. The law of infinitesimals seems to have been partly derived from his notion that any remedy would cause the patient to get worse before getting better and that one could minimize this negative effect by significantly reducing the size of the dose. Most critics of homeopathy balk at this "law" because it leads to remedies that have been so diluted as to have nary a single molecule of the substance one starts with.
Hahnemann came upon his Law of Similars (like cures like) in 1790 while translating William Cullen's Materia Medica into German (Loudon 1997: 94). He began experimenting on himself with various substances, starting with cinchona.
Daily for several days, he wrote, he had been taking four drams of the drug. Each time he had repeated the dose, his feet and finger tips had become cold, and other symptoms had followed which were typical of malaria. Each time he had stopped taking the cinchona, he had returned rapidly to a state of good health. (Williams 1981: 184)
Hahnemann experimented on himself with various drugs over several years and concluded that "a doctor should use only those remedies which would have the power to create, in a healthy body, symptoms similar to those that might be seen in the sick person being treated (ibid.)." Medicines should be given in single doses, he claimed, not in complex mixtures. His conclusions seem to have been based upon intuition or revelation. He did not experiment with patients by giving them drugs to discover which remedies worked with which illnesses or that only unmixed substances were effective. Indeed, he couldn't experiment on sick people because he assumed the remedy must produce an effect similar to the disease and he'd never be able to tell what remedies to use because the symptoms of the disease would be difficult to distinguish from those of the remedy in a sick person. Instead, he assumed that whatever caused the symptoms in a healthy person would be a remedy for a disease with similar symptoms.
Hahnemann's called this method of finding what symptoms a drug caused in a healthy person "proving."
Hahnemann did not leave us any details of the doses he used or the manner of giving the drugs, but from chance remarks elsewhere in his writings and from the accounts of his provers we have a pretty fair idea of what went on. All the provings at this time were carried out with tinctures (extracts) of herbs or, in the case of insoluble substances, with 'first triturations' (one part of substance ground up with nine parts of sugar or milk)....
His usual practice seems to have been to give repeated doses until some effect was produced; the actual amount was calculated on the basis of his own previous experience. The provers were expected to record their symptoms with the utmost care, and on presenting their notebooks to Hahnemann they had to offer him their hands - the customary way of taking an oath at German universities at that time - and swear that what they had reported was the truth. Hahnemann would then question them closely about their symptoms to elicit the details of time, factors that made them better or worse, and so on. Coffee, tea, wine, brandy and spices were forbidden to provers and so was chess (which Hahnemann considered too exciting), but beer was allowed and moderate exercise was encouraged. (Campbell)
Working on the principle of similarities, Hahnemann created remedies for various disorders that had symptoms similar to those of the substances his provers had taken. However, "....methods of proving are highly personalised and of individual relevance to the homoeopath or experimenter."* In other words, one hundred homeopaths preparing a remedy for one patient might well come up with one hundred different remedies.
Hahnemann may be praised for empirically testing his medicines, but his method of testing is obviously flawed. He wasn't actually testing the medicines for effectiveness on sick people but for their effects on healthy people. In any case, he had to rely upon the subjective evaluations of his provers, all of whom were his disciples or family members and all of whom were interrogated by the master himself. (Later investigators would use more controlled methods of proving.*) But even if his data weren't tainted by the possibility of his suggesting symptoms to his provers or their reporting symptoms to impress or gain the approval of the master, it is a belief in magic that connects this list of symptoms with the cure of a disease with similar symptoms. In logic, this kind of leap of reasoning is called a non sequitur: It does not follow from the fact that drug A produces symptoms similar to disease B that taking A will relieve the symptoms of B. However, homeopaths take customer satisfaction with A as evidence that A works.
There is some evidence that Hahnemann did not use healthy subjects to prove any of the remedies he recommended for most disorders: sulfur, cuttlefish ink, salt, and sand.
What appears to have happened is that Hahnemann based his new provings largely on symptoms supposed to have been produced in his chronic patients. By his own rules this procedure was inadmissible, and in fact it undoubtedly led him to attribute to the effect of the medicines a number of symptoms that were really due to the diseases the patients were suffering from. (Campbell)
While we might excuse Hahnemann for not doing properly controlled experiments, we shouldn't be so generous toward modern homeopaths for not understanding the nature of anecdotes and testimonial evidence. However, we can't accuse them of not doing any properly designed controlled experiments. But we can blame them for not understanding some fundamental principles of evaluating the results of controlled experiments that involve giving drugs or even inert substances to humans.
Today's homeopaths should know that because of the complexity of each individual human body, fifty different people may react in fifty different ways to the same substance. This makes doing clinical trials on potential medicines a procedure that should rarely claim dramatic results on the basis of one set of trials. Finding a statistically significant difference, positive or negative, between an experimental (drug therapy) group and a control group in one trial of a drug should usually be taken with a grain of salt. So should not finding anything statistically significant. It is not uncommon for twenty trials of a drug to result in several with positive, several with negative, and several with mixed or inconclusive results.
Yet, despite the fact that of the hundreds of studies that have been done on homeopathic remedies the vast majority have found no value in the remedies, some defenders of homeopathy insist not only that homeopathic remedies work but they claim they know how they work. It seems, however, that scientists like Jacques Benveniste, who claim to know how homeopathy works, have put the cart before the horse. Benveniste claims to have proven that homeopathic remedies work by altering the structure of water, thereby allowing the water to retain a "memory" of the structure of the homeopathic substance that has been diluted out of existence (Nature Vol. 333, No. 6176, pp. 816-818, 30th June, 1988).* (Benveniste even claims that a homeopathic solution's biological activity can be digitally recorded, stored on a hard drive, sent over the Internet, and transferred to water at the receiving end. He was a successful biologist working in a state-run lab until he started making such claims, which have cost him his status and reputation as a reputable scientist. He is now considered by his critics (such as James Randi) to be another Blondlot.) Since homeopathic remedies don't work, there is no need for a theory as to how they work. What there is need of is an explanation for why so many people are satisfied with their homeopath despite all the evidence that homeopathic remedies are ineffective.
Why does anyone believe homeopathy works?
Before attempting to explain why so many people believe homeopathy works, let me first defend the claim that homeopathic remedies are ineffective. There have been several reviews of various studies of the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments and not one of these reviews concludes that there is good evidence for any homeopathic remedy (HR) being effective. Homeopaths have had over 200 years to demonstrate their wares and have failed to do so. Sure, there are single studies that have found statistically significant differences between groups treated with an HR and control groups, but none of these have been replicated or they have been marred by methodological faults. Two hundred years and we're still waiting for proof! Having an open mind is one thing; waiting forever for evidence is more akin to wishful thinking.
A review of the reviews of homeopathic studies has been done by Terence Hines (2003: 360-362). He reviewed Taylor et al. (2000), Wagner (1997), Sampson and London (1995), Kleijen, Knipschild, and ter Riet (1991), and Hill and Doyon (1990). More than 100 studies have failed to come to any definitive positive conclusions about homeopathic potions. Ramey (2000) notes that
Homeopathy has been the subject of at least 12 scientific reviews, including meta-analytic studies, published since the mid-1980s....[And] the findings are remarkably consistent:....homeopathic "remedies" are not effective.
Nevertheless, homeopathy will always have its advocates, despite the lack of proof that its remedies are effective. Why? One reason is the prevalence of a misunderstanding of the causes of disease and how the human body deals with disease. Hahnemann was able to attract followers because he appeared to be a healer compared to those who were cutting veins or using poisonous purgatives to balance humors. More of his patients may have survived and recovered not because he healed them but because he didn't infect them or kill them by draining out needed blood or weaken them with strong poisons. Hahnemann's medicines were essentially nothing more than common liquids and were unlikely to cause harm in themselves. He didn't have to have too many patients survive and get better to look impressive compared to his competitors. If there is any positive effect on health it is not due to the homeopathic remedy, which is inert, but to the body's own natural curative mechanisms or to the belief of the patient (the placebo effect) or to the effect the manner of the homeopath has on the patient.
Stress can enhance and even cause illness. If a practitioner has a calming effect on the patient, that alone might result in a significant change in the feeling of well-being of the patient. And that feeling might well translate into beneficial physiological effects. The homeopathic method involves spending a lot of time with each patient to get a complete list of symptoms. It's possible this has a significant calming effect on some patients. This effect could enhance the body's own healing mechanisms in some cases. As homeopath Anthony Campbell puts it: "A homeopathic consultation affords the patient an opportunity to talk at length about her or his problems to an attentive and sympathetic listener in a structured environment, and this in itself is therapeutic."* In other words, homeopathy is a form of psychotherapy.
....most homeopaths like to allow at least 45 minutes for a first consultation and many prefer an hour or more. Second, patients feel that they are being treated "as an individual". They are asked a lot of questions about their lives and their likes and dislikes in food, weather, and so on, much of which has no obvious connection with the problem that has led to the consultation. Then the homeopath will quite probably refer to an impressively large and imposing source of information to help with choosing the right "remedy". (Campbell)
We know that there is virtually no scientific evidence that homeopathic remedies are effective. This does not mean that patients don't feel better or actually get better after seeing a homeopath. That is quite another matter, although it is clearly the reason for the satisfied customers. (Here the reader might consult the entries on the placebo effect, the post hoc fallacy and the regressive fallacy.)
Wendy Kaminer, a critic of various irrational behaviors, is one of those satisfied customers. Even so, she told her homeopath that her greatest fear "was that someone would find out I'd consulted a homeopath" (1999; p. 3), which is obviously not her greatest fear or she wouldn't have announced it to the world in her book.
When I go to my homeopath maybe I'm following one of the precepts of the recovery movement that I've always derided: I'm thinking with my heart and not my head. Or maybe I'm acting rationally after all. Believing in homeopathy may be irrational, but not using homeopathy if it works would be even more irrational. I care only if medicine works, not why. (I have the vaguest understanding of antibiotics.)
So I don't listen to scientists eager to tell me why homeopathic remedies can't possibly work, because they violate the laws of chemistry. Assuming that the scientists are right, and the remedies I've taken are mere placebos, why would I want to start doubting - and diminishing - their effectiveness? Why not be susceptible to placebos? (ibid.)
Here we have a rational person who decries irrational behavior admitting that she does something that many rational people would consider irrational. It is interesting how she has dealt with this cognitive dissonance. She has made the irrational rational (or at least less irrational than the alternative) by focusing on her belief that homeopathy works. But we know the potions don't work, so what is Kaminer talking about? She is not talking about scientific studies that show homeopathic remedies are effective, because such studies point in the opposite direction. In fact, she doesn't seem concerned whether such studies even exist. She means that she believes "homeopathy has helped me" (p. 4). Her caveat to the reader is don't take my word for it, try it yourself, which seems to imply that if I go to a homeopath and think it's helped me, then I'd be irrational not to continue seeing the homeopath. But what does help or helps mean? These are weasel words; they have no cognitive content though they are full of emotive meaning. Her only concession to the idea that perhaps she is acting irrationally is in her musing
....maybe I'm imagining that homeopathy has helped me. Maybe I'm confusing correlation with causation: perhaps I began feeling better coincidentally, for some unknown reason, at about the time I turned to homeopathy (ibid., p. 4).
She advises us not to take her word for it and tells us that we should ask her to substantiate her claim. She even advises us to try to duplicate her experience. Perhaps this is her notion of what a rational, scientifically-minded person should do. But there is no way I or anyone else can substantiate her claim by trying to duplicate it. We don't have a clear enough idea about her claim to know what we would be trying to substantiate. Her claim that something helped her is too vague to be of any value in trying to duplicate. Is she really saying that if I go to a homeopath and feel better afterward then I have substantiated and duplicated her claim? I think she is. And I think she is mistaken.
Yet, I think I understand what she is saying. If I, for example, went to a homeopath and found that under treatment the pain in my knees went away completely, the pain that I have been having for several years and which my physician tells me is due to bursitis, then I would be irrational not to continue with the homeopathic remedy. Furthermore, it would be irrational not to consult my homeopath should I begin suffering pain, say, in my elbow or shoulder or back. If I could start jogging again, I would be irrational not to continue seeing my homeopath. I might agree. But, if I consulted a homeopath about a new pain that my physician had been unable to relieve me of with conventional therapy and after the homeopathic treatment the pain went away, I would not consider it irrational to not continue going to the homeopath. I would consider it likely that the pain would have gone away had I not consulted the homeopath. (If you are wondering why, consult my entry on the regressive fallacy.)
Furthermore, if a homeopathic remedy did cure me of my knee pain, I would want to investigate what was in the remedy. Even though most homeopathic remedies in the U.S. and the UK are little more than water or alcohol, there are a number of products on the market that are labeled homeopathic that have active ingredients in them (see complex homeopathy, isopathy, and nosodes). However, if I did find that my remedy was one of those that had been diluted so many times that there weren't any molecules remaining of the original active substance, I would rather believe that my pain had suddenly gone away than that the homeopathic remedy had cured me of my pain. Why? Because the known laws of physics and chemistry would have to be completely revamped if a tonic from which nearly every molecule of the active ingredient were removed could be shown to be effective. But if I could yo-yo the pain by stopping and starting the homeopathic remedy under double-blind conditions, I would have to conclude that the potion was having the effect and would have to become an advocate of that homeopathic remedy. This is just to say that homeopathic remedies can be empirically tested. That no remedy has yet been shown to have the effect I have outlined is strong evidence against homeopathic remedies.
Even though homeopathic remedies are ineffective, homeopathy itself is very effective or it wouldn't have lasted and grown for the past 200 years. It is very popular in Europe, especially among the royal family of Britain. There are schools of homeopathy all over the world. Homeopathy is said to be $200 million a year industry in the United States. "The fact that it is condemned as unscientific by some orthodox doctors is for many people a positive merit, not a criticism" (Campbell).
The main harm from classical homeopathy is not likely to come from its remedies, which are probably safe but ineffective, though this is changing as homeopathy becomes indiscernible from herbalism in some places. One potential danger is in the encouragement to self-diagnosis and treatment. Another danger lurks in not getting proper treatment by a conventional medical doctor in those cases where the patient could be helped by such treatment, such as for a bladder or yeast infection, or for cancer. Homeopathy might work in the sense of helping some people feel better some of the time. Homeopathy does not work, however, in the sense of explaining pathologies or their cures in a way which not only conforms with the data but which promises to lead us to a greater understanding of the nature of health and disease.