From: bsimon@stsci.edu (Bernie Simon)
Subject: Re: Scientific Basis for Homeopathy?
Organization: None. This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
	<1993Jan25.011920.7318@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:02:28 GMT

Homeonet is a computer bulletin board for homeopaths. I think most of
the subscribers are professional homeopaths.

It's not clear to me what misrepresentations of fact you are referring
to in the two books I recommended to you, "Discovering Homeopathy" and
"Homeopathic Science & Modern Medicine". If you can give a quote that
you feel is misleading, perhaps we can discuss it further.

Homeopathic physicians have found from their clinical experience that
homeopathy is effective against both accute, self-limiting conditions
and chronic conditions. I see no reason why a licensed physician
should not employ homeopathic treatment against chronic conditions if
he or she feels that allopathic treatment is not the most appropriate.
Lay prescribers, should limit themselves to prescribing for
self-limiting conditions and this is what the home care books
indicate. Perhaps you are not aware that the Homeopathic Educational
Services catalog is aimed at both a professional and lay audience.

Until recently all professional homeopaths were licensed M.D.'s or
dentists. The main homeopathic professional organization, the AIH,
still only admits M.D.'s or dentists. All the homeopaths that I am
aware of in the Baltimore-Washington area are either M.D.'s or
practice together with a homeopathic M.D. Recently the two schools
which offer degrees in naturopathic medicine have offered programs in
homeopathic medicine. So you will find many naturopaths practicing
homeopathy in those, mostly Western, states which grant naturopaths
licenses to practice. Naturopaths are trained health professionals,
but I do not know how their training compares to an M.D.

Many persons do not visit an alternative health practitioner until
after they have already visited an allopathic physician, who has
failed to relieve their problem. To give an example, a friend of mine
has been suffering for years with severe headaches. She has visited
many allopathic physicians who failed to cure her problem. Recently
she visited a homeopathic physician (not prompted by me). The doctor
prescribed for her and suggested that she also see a Rolfer. Since
then her condition has greatly improved, though she attributes most of
the improvement to the Rolfer. I think if alternative medicine had not
been available she would still be suffering from her headaches. I know
of several other cases where alternative medicine has succeded where
allopathy has failed and I am sure that other readers of this
newsgroup could supply a hundred stories like it. So I wonder who or
what you are trying to protect by restricting access to alternative
medicine. 

While medical practice and techniques are regulated by law and
labeling of products are restricted by law, there are no restrictions
on what can be published and such restrictions are probably
unconstitutional. I find the idea that you consider such restrictions
might be a good idea upsetting and hope most of your colleagues
disagree with you. I think that the average man or woman is capable of
deciding for themselves what ideas make sense in all areas, including
health care. So I am suspicious of those who would try to restrict
access to information to others "for their own good".


--
Bernie Simon 		What we know comes to so little
(bsimon@stsci.edu)	And what we presume is so much  -- Neruda
		

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative