Homeopathic doctors, by definition, don't really treat anything, so I'm afraid you won't find what you are looking for.

Why not go to a voodoo priest, then.

The Voll method, by the way, consists in using a galvanometer to measure electrical resistance of the patient's skin in different points.  It cannot diagnose or cure anything. It's baloney -- just like homeopathy.

Hello there,

I found you a list of different homeopathic doctors in Geneva. I hope it helps you

http://yellow.local.ch/en/q?what=Homeopathy&where=Geneva&rid=2Y63 

Have a good day

Siddarth

Can u send me the number of the homeopath doctor as i have to show my mother.

best.

Nirupama

Hi,

Where did you find the definition that they "don't really treat anything"?

Cheers!

Hi,

Where did you read that it cannot diagnose anything? And how did you come to the conclusion that it's baloney?

Cheers!

I know wikipedia is not pubmed, but there are references at the bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroacupuncture_according_to_Voll

While some may use the device to diagnose ailments, for which there is no credible evidence of diagnostic capability, there are many that use the device for that of which is was designed, the measurement of energy on acupuncture end points.

See also: pseudoscience

But hey, you're of course free to throw your money in whatever direction you wish, if it makes you feel better...

"If alternative medicine were proven to work, it would just be medicine". Alternative medicine thus by definition has not been proven to work.

With homeopathy, at least in its narrow definition of prescribing extremely diluted substances, I would go further and say that it can be scientifically proven NOT to work. Many homeopathic treatments are so diluted that they contain no molecule of the 'active' substance, and are therefore exactly the same as a placebo.

In general I am perfectly happy for people to visit any kind of 'doctor' they want to. I have less tolerance for those who would inflict this on their kids...

I believe in this kind of medicine. One time I treated my daughter with homeopathic doctor. I treated adenoidis. Pediatre told her to go to operation, because her nose didnt breath.But I treated her, and everything was good. Now she has another problem and I want to try again. Its better then make her addicted to strong pills.

Hi,

Thanks for that. I work in the Alternative Investment Industry. According to your quote (who is it by, by the way?), by definition, is it proven that our investments don't "work"?

I gather you tried homeopathy and it didn't work for you?

Cheers

Unfortunately it doesn't matter whether your believe in it or not, it simply doesn't work.

So the doctor recommended an operation and you had your daughter's adenoids "treated" with sugar pills instead?  You should be made aware of the fact that you're risking her health and possibly her life.

There's no reason to be pharmacophobic.  Using medicines when you really need them does not make you addicted (except for some kinds of medicines, but that's a different thing altogether).

I dont risk nothing! When I was a child, my mum treated me and my brother with homeopathy, instead of antibiotics. Now I'm 30 and strong. And nothing bad happened

TheOmegaMan, thanks for your link. But I dont agree frome the first sentences of this article. Exema is an easily-treatable skin condition. Of course, you will treat exema with creams, and in few years you'll get asthma. You will not remove the sickness with cream, you'll put it more deep.

It was her own immune system that cured her, not homeopathy. Homeopathic medicine consists largely of sugar pills, water and pseudoscience which argues that 'water has memory, so our sugar pills aren't really sugar pills, because there are ghost particles in there'.

You can check this for yourself if you don't believe me. Send your homeopathic meds to a lab to be tested for its constituents, or if you have access to a spectrometer eg. from a university, you could do the checking process yourself.

I have recently read that homeopathy might work just because the doctor spends much more time listening to the patient and shows more compassion and empathy than the busy traditional doctors.

Who knows perhaps love (and compassion) is all we need...

I was not expecting to read such a uncivilised comments to one persons question in Glocals forum.

No one asked for other people's beleifs, just practical phone number kind of question.

This used to be civilized people's forum some years ago, but I guess it is just as what is happening to Geneva overall: less and less manirs, less and less culture, human behaviour...

I am embarassed to read how one's person opinion is treated just cause its not ours.

I suspect it was the somewhat superfluous "can really treat children" that grated.

A doctor who "spends much more time listening to the patient and shows more compassion and empathy" will on average get better results. A doctor who wears a white coat will on average gets better results. An expensiive pill works better than a cheap one. One can grow out of adenoid issues, one can recover from a sore throat without antibiotics... in these situations homeopathy is arguably better than medicine, as is a sugar-coated pill from a doctor.

On the other hand, I have a friend in the US who practices 'alternative medicine'. He will advise anyone with signs of Lyme disease or the equivalent to go to a real doctor and get the course of antibiotics. To do otherwise would be criminally negligent.

Anyway, the 50c coin in my pocket that protects against tiger attacks is working like a charm. I haven't been mauled yet.

Nothing bad happened because you were lucky, not because that stuff cured you. 

Please accept my advice and go to a real doctor as soon as possible. 

By the way, the idea that "creams for eczema give you asthma and they don't treat eczema, they put it deeper" is nonsense; where did you hear that?

I don't think that "uncivilised" means what you think it means.

Let's make it clear.  If a person one day posts a message on Glocals saying...

"Hi, yesterday I ate mushrooms and now I have this severe pain in my belly.  Please tell me the number of a very powerful witch that can cast the evil demons out of my body."

... I give her the hospital's phone number, not the shaman's.  That's what any decent person would do.

And right you would be too - all "natural" doctors I know would also send the patient to a "regular" doctor in this situation. I think we can assume that the child in the question is not suffering from cancer, funky mushrooms, lime's disease or anything bad. If not, do go and see a doctor, indeed!

I saw a naturopath for fever blisters - classic doctors told me to treat the symptoms, this doctor treated the cause. It worked for me and dismissing that would be denying reality, or claiming it's a coincidence - and I dare anyone to prove that point (would be fascinated if someone succeeded, actually). 

Being concerned for someone's health is very considerate, being upset because someone uses treatments which, I'm led to believe, you don't have experience with, will mainly upset others. 

If anyone wants to discuss this over a coffee, it could be more interesting and we wouldn't be hijacking this thread. 

All the best

Just think a little bit logically! Where to exema disappears? You put cream, you hide it, it disappears, but more deep, where you will not find it. And then you get asthma or something else.

How doctors treat asthma? They give you gormons. And the more you take, the more you need. Is it treatment?

But you can go another way and find the main reason and treat this reason, not to treat just simptoms and be calm and happy, because simptoms disappeared. 

I treated my daughter from adenoidis with the normal doctor. The treatment was the list of 7 different pills, drops and sirops, and phisiotherephy. She felt better after treatmen, but then, 3 days in the kindergarten and she got it again. After few treatment like this I noticed that she didnt hear anything. Once I put her to sleep, and put music near her. And she said: "Mammy, can you put music?".

Anyway, I don't want to discuss if I'm correct or not.  

Hello All,

I understand that this subject stirs up some strong emotions, especially where kids are involved, but please keep the discussion civilized and try to respect the opinions of others.

Telling someone how foolish you think his/her opinion is probably won't do much to convince them and will only bring this discussion down.

Thanks

Oded

The bullshit meter has just hit the ceiling. I can't believe what I'm reading here. Just please take your kiddy to a normal pediatrician. If you don't, you should immediately be relieved of your parental rights as you for sure are endagering your childs health and wellbeing. Enough children have died because of this mumbo jumbo and it should stop.

Hi Oded,

I think it needs to be pointed out that there are opinions and there are scientific facts.

Secondly, people must be respected, not opinions.  Opinions, ideas and beliefs need to be challenged, analyzed, and refused if they don't stand evidence.  This is what we're doing here and there's no personal attack involved.  I sincerely hope nobody thought otherwise or got offended.

There are a lot of good scientific resources on homeopathy and I encourage everybody to read around and learn more.  That said, better not to fuel another endless thread so I'll refrain from posting more.

perhaps start here : 

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

Interesting websites written by "the Merseyside Skeptics Society" and "Tim Farley, software engineer from Atlanta", whatever their medical background may be and whoever they are. The wikipedia article above was, too, rather amusing because it was so biased and, actually, appeared to be written by someone with no exprience in the domain (I have used the machine in question and the criticism misses the point of the machine, entirely).

Aside from the fact that the situation is none of our business, it looks like the people who are offended by other people seeing naturopaths state the following:

1) if you're ill, see a doctor (she did this)

2) take the medicine he prescribes you (she did this)

3) if you're not cured, DO NOT SEEK ALTERNATIVE HELP!

1 and 2 make sense and she did this, 3 is just plain silly: she looked for a different solution, which appears to have worked, even though you think it shouldn't have. I have not read anyone here write "always skip 1 and 2".

Yes, ideas and beliefs should be challenged, there is however a time and place for that and doing so publicly when off topic is rather rude - and silly, no matter how good the intention and the concern for a little girl's health. And it is rather untactful to call for someone to be relieved of their parental rights, especially when you have no idea of the context because you did not read their previous posts (which, actually, were none of anyone's business). But indeed, when our beliefs get challenged, we can get quite emotional and less kind than we would like.

I'm just hoping there isn't another thread being started entitled "former exema suffering little girl given up for adoption by "irresponsible" mother"... :-)

Keep Calm and Wind Down? :-)

The moment you post something like "ecxema goes only inside when use cream" on a public forum and state that YOU treat your child - it becomes everybodies business this is a forum. Again never in history it has been proven homeopathy cures people  Those points have been made clear enough  it's a Pitty that people camt differentiate between sience and psueso sience  

With our regards to your 3 steps. Indeed - she went to a doctor, and yes she went and took the prescribed medicine, but you go wrong with point 3. Nobody is saying - don't do anything. NO - you go back to your regular pediatrician - or you find an other one because their might be something totally different wrong. 

With adults going to homeopathic doctors - I have no probleM. IMHO it's ultimate Darwinism at work. What bothers me more is that children have no choice and blindly trust their parents. And that is wrong. It should be anchored in the law that you provide the best regular (and that's not homeopath) care from real medical doctors. Not from charlatans. 

ive said it before and say again. If you post something controversial on a public forum expect some reactions. if you want flame free info on homeopathy perhaps post it on a forum with like minded people. 

Im pretty much chilled out. Have a nice day

Happy we're getting you on a day when you're chilled!

And I'm afraid it will take more than a case of nasty eczema for your darwinism to work, thank goodness! :-)

Regarding the three steps, you appear to confirm that you would state "never ever go and see a homeopath, even if none of the treatments any regular doctors are prescribing are working, just keep of seeing regular doctors and taking their medicine, even if it doesn't work". Is this indeed the case? Is there really no situation where you'd think "homeopathy might be worth a try, nothing to lose, nothing else is working"?

That would be really weird because, if I follow your argument, homeopathy is just a waste of time and money, the only risk being not treating a life threatening illness. Ok, fair enough. So if it is not life threatening, like a cold, what's the downside? No adverse effects, because it doesn't work right? And unless one shares your beliefs, there might be an upside. Seems pretty harmless to me... Or am I missing something?

Perhaps you have exprience with eczema, either as a patient, knowing someone who had it, or as a doctor? Do you know of any cases where someone tried to cure it through homeopathy and either it didn't work or Darwinism bumped them off (that would be pretty vicious eczema - or rather fatal homeopathy!)? Do you personally know people who have used homeopathy? What is the size of that sample? What percentage reported positive or negative results? Or neutral results?

For the record, I am not stating that homeopathy works, I am not a doctor, I have not studied any form of medecin and I refuse to use moronic articles written by random, often anonymous people, found on the internet as references, simply because they confirm what I want to believe. As it happens, I observe symptoms disappearing when people follow homeopathic treatments. I have no idea why, but I will not deny my observations simply because I am uninformed or because it makes no sense to me or because it doesn't fit my beliefs. Neither will I state an explanation is true, merely that it is the most plausible encountered so far - or that I have not yet encountered a plausible explanation.

You state that "never in history has it been proven that homeopathy cures people" - quite a bold statement, if I may. Am I right to believe that you are however open to reconsidering, if presented with adequate proof? What would adequate proof be? An empirical case? Five? Ten? Ten thousand? A theory? A revised wikipedia article? Or meeting a classically trained doctor who prescribes antibiotics when necessary and homeopathy when he finds it more effecient? If that's what you need, I have one, would be happy to introduce you, perhaps you could have a debate with him see if his 30+ years of medical experience fall apart when confronted with wikipedia, http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html and the various other bizarre sources that have popped up in this rather extraordinary thread.

I'm sure you understand I care about establishing whether there's any point discussing this further and debating your arguments together with you (or anyone else); I trust you are open to questioning your way of thinking and learning from an exchange, probably not about homeopathy (pretty much no one on this thread appears to really know anything about it, other than those who have first hand experience and, even they (myself included), have not studied it, AFAIK), but maybe about the way you are thinking and arguing, in the same way as I am open to questioning my thoughts, arguments and, yes, my experience with homeopathy and the correlation I concluded exists between the start of a treatment and the disappearance of symptoms shortly after. 

I'm prepared to be wrong and stand corrected on every statement I make, I would actually welcome that; are you? If not, that's fine, I accept that and then I'm sure we can agree there's no point discussing this or any other topic that is dogmatically believed. 

Have a good evening

"You state that "never in history has it been proven that homeopathy cures people" - quite a bold statement, if I may. Am I right to believe that you are however open to reconsidering, if presented with adequate proof? What would adequate proof be? An empirical case? Five? Ten? Ten thousand? A theory? A revised wikipedia article?"

As far as I know there are plenty of academic studies using very large data samples that show the effect of homeopathy is consistent with the effect of the placebo effect. I've never come accross any rigorous study reporting that there is a real effect beyond the placebo effect.

There is a very simple answer to the very long story stated above, as it was said before in this thread. If alternative medicine would work, they would be called "regular medicine". I don't think we need more proof as there are tons of naturally derived medicine out there.   

Notable examples include the opiate painkillers, such as morphine and oxycodone, which are derived from the latex sap of the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum). Opiates represent one of the best-selling classes of prescription medications. Another example is aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), which has been described as “the most popular painkiller in the world.” Aspirin is the world’s first-ever synthetic drug and is derived from salicylic acid, which is found in willow (Salix spp.) and meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria, formerly Spirea ulmaria).

I leave it at this because this is a kind of religious dicussion and we have enough of those already.

Gee I leave for a few days and see what happens...

Look people, of course everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Take as many sugar pills and homeopatic water you want if it makes you happy.

However, as a wiser man said many years ago, you are not entitled to make up your own facts.

So long as controlled studies measure no effect in alternative remedies, I do not care about your anecdotal "oh but when I was a child ..." and "ah but that one time ...".

Nor do I see any reason to feel bad about pointing out bullshit when I see it.

Linked, today's WonderMark, which was oddly appropriate.

Actually it matters: placebo only works if person believe 

This discussion is stupid. If a person had asked for a good homeopath, obviously she has a good experience in treating her kid with homeopathy. She didn't ask anyone if they personally believe in homeopathy (like if it was a some kind of religion!) she neither didn't ask of any scientific proof if it works or not. "Scientific proof" of wikipedia given lower is just anecdotical either. Noone asked your opinion here, person asked for help of a good specialist in this sphere. So all sceptics can leave their opinion to themselves.

Dear Anna, I know a regular doctor who changed and  practices homepathy. If you are still interested, please write to me. In fact I am going to see her tomorrow.

Thanks you, Veronica! I found)

Yes, probably because homeopathy is "so inefficient", it is covered by the swiss medical insurance and there is the homeopathical oncological hospital in Switzerland, only in Europe, where by the way recently had been done statystical research by people from outside, that quality of life of oncological patients treated by homeopathy parallely to chemio is significantly better, then those who are treated just by chemio. I won't even read your research. I am going regulary on studies in this hospital and pictures of kids not loosing hair after chemio and not vomiting their guts out and having normal color of the face are much better proof then anything else. Young person with not operable bone carninoma that survives 15 years! on homeopathy when traditional medicine would generally offer him cemetery in half of a year. A one-year old girl that has metastases in the guts and is not able to walk and only cries on arrival that has follow-up of 10 years! and starts going to school and live a normal kids life. People who continue working with very severe forms of cancer thanks to homeopathy they don't die like plants and they continue functioning for the time what is left with their situation. I am not going to argue with people who don't know what are they speaking about. It takes 6 years to be a doctor plus 3-4 years to be a homeopath, plus another 2 years if you go for master. Do you really think it's that simple? How many scientific homeopathical jornals have you read? There are hundreds of studies done last years only in veterinary medicine that proves efficiency of homeopathy. And veterinary studies mean there's no popular effect of placebo that they speak about in humans. Sorry for my medical cynism.

Jelena - Scientific proof we need. Not annecdotal stories. it's mumbo jumbo - fake. You are totally free to "believe" in it - but please don't pull any children into this as they cannot decide like an adult for themselves. And your medical cynism.... that's yours and I wish you all the best. I can study fairy tales for 10 years. They still will remain fairy tales. If you study rubbish - it doesn't make it the truth suddenly because you studied it for a couple of years or did a "masters" in it.. It's just a very good market, as you sell water and sugar for the price of gold.

If you need scientifical proof, you can easily find it the Jornal of the Faculty of Homeopathy printed by Elsevier. Lots of information. Or google "Dr Rajesh Shah", on his site he speaks about his scientific researches and the pictures before and after homeopathical treatment. For example.

I treat myself mainly with homeopathy and phytotherapy and I am in a very good health.

Concerning children--I feel sorry for those children who are receiving hormonal corticosteroids that are damaging their health where there are some other natural options. And exactly--they themselves don't have a choice to refuse garbage. 

If you need scientifical proof, you can easily find it the Jornal of the Faculty of Homeopathy printed by Elsevier. Lots of information. Or google "Dr Rajesh Shah", on his site he speaks about his scientific researches and the pictures before and after homeopathical treatment. For example.

I treat myself mainly with homeopathy and phytotherapy and I am in a very good health.

Concerning children--I feel sorry for those children who are receiving hormonal corticosteroids that are damaging their health where there are some other natural options. And exactly--they themselves don't have a choice to refuse garbage.

There is no proper scientific proof that it works. Articles written by the industry itself are merely a scientic proof. Again - if it would work it would be called regular medicine. Again - it's perfectly fine if it helps people but on average it only helps you getting rid of your money. Again believe what you want... you are a free person. 

That you treat yourself with placebo's is fine - but it is hardly proof that it works. Perhaps we should take the test. Get some ebola and treat yourself with homeopathy. People will say you where very brave. So far you just have been lucky not to get anything which your own immune system cannot sort out. Also homeopathic doctors talking people out of regular medicine should be tried for manslaughter. (luckily that happened already once in Holland). 

I repeat myself. People witholding regular medicine from children should have their parental rights revoked. If it comforts them besides regular medicine it's OK, but the moment you start to withhold regular care....

All the best and take care. I'm out of here. 

"there is no proper scientific proof that it works"

You are just stupborn! Check my links

This article is not about homeopathy. This article is about incompetence in homeopathy, which exists also in traditional medicine. Don't mix incompetence with high-level homeopathical treatment.

Fragment of this article: "Sample prescriptions found medicines such as 'shavings of Hogsfoot bark' and 'two drops of that blue stuff in the fancy jar' being recommended, with 30% throwing in a reference to 'temporal chakras' or praying to the river god Bento while wearing a hat made of ivy."

So let me say to you--this is NOT homeopathy and not even close to that. Pharmacyst can RARELY recommend homeopathy except some acute trauma case, because homeopathy is individual for each patient. A person should come on the personal visit with a homeopath, if neccesary do some bloodwork and/or other medical tests do make a DIAGNOSIS. Based on the symptoms homeopath chooses remedy, based on the diagnosis he chooses potency (dilution) of the remedy. If problem is not solvable without surgery, homeopath sends person to a surgeon and then has post-surgical care to help healing after operation. 

You can find lots of incompetent people also in traditional medicine, I am sure. For example once I had been in the pharmacy in Geneva where they didn't know what is activated charcoal. Once in pharmacy in Canton Vaud they gave me a medicament which contains hormone and they didn't warn about it and didn't ask any question concerning my health state. Once my friend went to buy a homeopathical medicament for her pet in a very serious condition with cancer and pharmacist not knowing what the situation is gave an advice to give it 3 times per day, which is inapropriate and is dangerous in such condition. The dose should be prescribed only by a doctor who examined the patient.

But medicine shouldn't be generalised based on such cases of incompetence. 

http://www.askdrshah.com/scientific-homeopathy.aspx Concerning the correct approach in homeopathy

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Homoeopathy-pills-as-effective-as-painkillers-finds-study/articleshow/33518170.cms Homeopathy kills pain as good as pain-killers

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475939/ The real scientific study done on rats, medical terminology

https://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Homeopathic_research/Scientific_Evidence_for_Homeopathic_Medicine.html For an average reader

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.793 Scientific statistic from hospital which uses homeopathy

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19 Life quality of cancer patients with homeopathy compared with no homeopathy. Need to read it all to understand, reading just a part might give wrong impression.

I could continue this list until we have no more space in forum :) 

You are using google for wrong researches :) Be a bit more positive ;)

Modern medicine also uses plants

Exactly, and that's why they are called "regular medicine" and not homeopathy. They have been proven to work. I have not seen one shred of proper evidence otherwise that it mumbo jumbo works. All the proof given is written by the industry itself. It's like the tabacco industry spondering a research on the damaging effect of smoking... Or an oil company sponsering climate change research. They ofcourse only are going to publish the results which suits them. I'd say it one more time and than I'm out of here : "if homeopathic medicine would work - it would be called normal medicine!!!!!" - see Catalin's post. Water has no bloody memory. Heavily diluted sugar doesn't do anything. 

>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19 Life quality of cancer patients with homeopathy >compared with no homeopathy. Need to read it all to understand, reading just a part might give >wrong impression.

Right, so first of all this is not a random sample, this study lets patients evaluate their well being with or without homeopathy next to the normal medical treatment, where 1 group is formed by patients who already had themselves admitted to a homeopathic hospital.

Obviously people who get what they love or believe in when seriously ill will feel better. For some that means being able to go to mass in hospital, for other to have their pet on their bedside etc.  Stuff diluted to a factor greater than atoms in the observable universe still doesn't cure cancer, alas. 

>I could continue this list until we have no more space in forum :) 

That is not needed, falsification is the backbone of modern science, so a single scientific study that shows that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect will suffice. Until now, there is no such thing. 

See the movie "Water" based on the work of Japanese scientist Masaru Emoto.

If it was placebo effect, there would be no effect from homeopathy on animals. As I mentioned, there are studies published in the Journal of The Faculty of Homeopathy done on animals. You just don't listen and continue repeating the same thing. By the way what about study on the rats that I published before? Too long to read, ha? More simple to say "There are no such studies".

People say "there are no such studies" and you repeat. That's like following the crowd. Take the jornal I mentioned if you are really interested, one of the interesting studies I found there was on cells in vitro and concerning exactly cancer cells. They took 3 homeopathical remedies and documented changes in cells, proving that there is an affect. But I am sure you won't force yourself to try to open yourself to something new and you will just continue saying "there are no such studies" and some other people will start repeating that without knowing the information source.

I am not going to waste my time anymore, I hope the links I shared helps to at least one person, then I will know that it wasn't for nothing.

If it was placebo effect, there would be no effect from homeopathy on animals. As I mentioned, there are studies published in the Journal of The Faculty of Homeopathy done on animals. You just don't listen and continue repeating the same thing. By the way what about study on the rats that I published before? Too long to read, ha? More simple to say "There are no such studies".

People say "there are no such studies" and you repeat. That's like following the crowd. Take the jornal I mentioned if you are really interested, one of the interesting studies I found there was on cells in vitro and concerning exactly cancer cells. They took 3 homeopathical remedies and documented changes in cells, proving that there is an affect. But I am sure you won't force yourself to try to open yourself to something new and you will just continue saying "there are no such studies" and some other people will start repeating that without knowing the information source.

I am not going to waste my time anymore, I hope the links I shared helps to at least one person, then I will know that it wasn't for nothing.

Dear Jelena,

Thanks for the links. I checked them.

I am not as surprised by your rejection of other posters' sources of evidence or arguments. What astonishes me is what you offer as evidence to support your views. Out of respect for you and motivated by your passion, I checked the supporting material you offer.

This is what I found in the first of your links I checked :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475939/

I chose it first because it is associated with the NIH, a credible source.

This is what the article concludes: "Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials." I am puzzled why your offer it as evidence in favor of your views. In cautious scientific language, that kind of statement means "although some people report encouraging observations, once you conduct well controlled studies, there is no evidence that it works."

I then went to the website of the Faculty of Homeopathy, which you refer to, and found the following. They have been around since 1844. They state that homeopathy is a form of medicine being used by over 200 million people. I would expect that after 171 years and with 200 million current patients they would be in a position to offer solid evidence. So what do they offer as evidence? This is a direct quote:

"There are a total of 163 peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCT) in homeopathy: 67 had positive findings; 85 were non-conclusive; only 11 were negative. These trials represent research in 69 separate medical complaints."

Putting aside what they mean by "positive findings" , a 41 percent success rate is hardly supporting, especially if you do not have controls to account for other factors.  Then, they do an analyis of the studies, and list the effect of homeopathic treatment on 61 conditions, using a ranking system that no self-respecting scientist of clinician could get away with. Yet, of the 61 conditions they find "Clearly positive direction of RCT evidence in 2 conditions: Seasonal allergic rhinitis and Sinusitis." That is it. Two conditions out of 61, and both are conditions that clear out on their own, thanks to your immune system.

That is the evidence offered by the most serious body associated with Homeopathy, after 171 years.

To their credit, they go on to state that homeopathy is not an alternative to conventional medicine.

So, thanks, Jelena, your links were very useful, I am just sorry to tell you they provide evidence contrary to your views.

Your passionate defense of homeopathy would be more admirable if it we were not talking about people's health, well-being and in some cases survival. I hope you will understand why so many people reacted strongly to it. There are a number of other public discussions, such as on the use of vaccines in children in the US, which has had a negative impact on the health of children and on the general spread of disease, with negative consequences for all of us.  Still, you are entitled to make your choices. But we all often pay the consequences of the choices made by a few, especially when it comes to untreated or improperly treated infectious diseases.

I would encourage you to keep an open mind and consider that some of those offering opinions are actually well-informed, and have scientific training.

And I hope Anna appreciates what I think is the intent of many of those who offered their opinion. I think they want to spare her and her child(ren) the consequences of a bad choice.

Finally, I think it is very telling that pratices like homeopathy try to market themselves as alternative medicine, whereas no medical treatment tries to gain acceptance by selling itself as "alternative homeopathy." It tells you who has the credibility that the other wants to associate itself with.

JR M,

I appreciate that you took time to at least have a look. 

I don't know if you saw the explanation why the standart groups like in traditional medicine research are not possible in research in homeopathy. It is due to the fact that for the same disease different patients will have different remedies, because the choice of the remedy is individual to each patient. I will try to explain as simple as I can: take 10 people with influenza, each of them will have different signs, for example: for some starts from a headache, for some starts with runny nose, for some starts with bone ache and fever, etc. For traditional medicine it is still influenza and they consider the patients equal. Homeopathy doesn't consider them equal, it divides them by symptoms that concrete person has. So it means, grouping becomes difficult. Some of patients might have same remedy (2-3 from 10, for example), but others--not. So concerning the research with animals what I mentioned was done. They took a herd and they did "average" of symptoms--took only the symptoms most of the animals had, had analysed it with a programm and had put one remedy for all of them in the water. And even though it was not individualised, they still had a good result, it was on pigs with diarrhea. Another such example was with milking cows and they came to a conclusion, that milking % in liters significantly grew after they started using homeopathy (they compared values for previous years and for the year they used homeopathy). 

What I am trying to show, that even if there is problem with grouping, there are still researches which give us curious information. And it is improving and growing. I am not declying traditional medicine, I am not saying we don't need it at all, I am not claiming that homeopathy cures everything, because nothing cures everything (nor allopathical drugs, nor natural). But quality of life might become different. I am against the crazy-eating of chemical drugs without thinking of consequences, I am against putting person on hormones before he tried natural options (except some particular emergency cases, ofcourse). What makes me mad, that people who claim homeopathy doesn't work maybe came to a pharmacy and asked "something against headache" for example and then they say everywhere--it doesn't work, I tried once, no changes. First, it is not the way to be done (I already mentioned above the clinical exams and tests and personal visit to a doctor), second... does allopathy always work? No. 

From my personal experience homeopathy saved me from operation when I was 19 years old. Never had that problem again. My cat is diabetic, she became diabetic after I moved and I couldn't transfer her to a new country immideately (needed time for documents, etc). When I came to pick her up she could hardly move her hindlegs, doing couple of steps and sitting. My parents didn't think something was wrong as they are not doctors. So by now she is 2,5 years on homeopathy, walking normally, plus the diet ofcourse, but no insulin. She is 12 years old. Isn't it great? Yes, her glucose is slightly high, but she feels comfortable. And I don't need to make injections several times per day. My another cat is a rescue after spinal trauma and bladder paralysis. He had atonia of the bladder, total, on X-rays bladder was enormous, it took the whole abdominal cavity. I was waiting for the worse, but I managed to get back his tonus with homeopathy. Without that he would have been euthanised. Yes, he has some health issues due to the old fracture of the spine, but he is comfortable and happy. He runs limping towards the balcony to go outside and purres loudly when you hug him. 

My point is before refusing something give it a try even if you don't understand it. It might change your life. It doesn't mean it will work always, but if it does?

Another personal example--I cured myself a bleeding ulcer with one granule of homeopathy. My doctor was also very surprised (he is a traditional medic, and he had done the examination). I took the prescription he wrote to me of acid-blocking medicaments for a month, but I didn't need it luckily. In 2 minutes after taking the remedy I had no more burning pain, no nausea, I could eat normally and I could sleep without getting up every 2 hours to drink some water and to eat something, because pain was waking me up and was unbearable. For a placebo effect it's too fast, don't you think? And I wasn't even sure yet if it was correct remedy and if it works.

You could also believe in god. That would not mean, that god/s actually exists.

It keeps on going... Anecdotical pseudo-science.... 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/another-review-finds-homeopathy-worthless/

here the conclusion... 

Homeopathy cannot work. That is as reliable a scientific statement as any we can make. In other words, if homeopathy did work, we would have to rewrite major parts of basic science textbooks, including physics, chemistry, and biology.

When tested clinically, despite their utter lack of plausibility, homeopathic potions are shown to lack efficacy. So not only should they not work, they in fact don’t work.

Yet proponents of homeopathy would have the world believe that one man, Samuel Hahnemann, stumbled upon a fantastic secret two centuries ago (actually, multiple secrets) that defy scientific explanation, have been ignored by 200 years of scientific progress, and yet to this day would turn our scientific understanding of the world upside down. For some reason, however, believers just can’t seem to produce any convincing evidence for any of it, not even that homeopathic products have any properties at all, let alone clinical efficacy. After 200 years all they can produce are endless excuses and demands for more research.

For some reason we cannot summon the political will to do what reason demands (and what multiple systematic reviews by government bodies have recommended) and finally expel homeopathy from modern health care.

this is fascinating. Can you please provide the verified scientific evidence that treating with creams leads to asthma? not to mention how "you'll put it more deep", therefore meaning that exczema is really just deep asthma?

http://rlv.zcache.com/homeopathy_the_air_guitar_of_medicine_shirts-r3ca8960af3cc4c9aa445336437cdc36f_f0yqz_152.jpg

I cannot provide and I don't want.

And I don't understand why everybody continue discussion. 

I found homeopathic doctor, I Don't need any advices.

Everybody continues because statements like the one you made are ignorant, unfounded, wrong and dangerous. It's okay if you don't know how the body works, but in that case don't make statements like 'treating ezcema with cream makes it go deeper and turns it into asthma'. It's simply not true. But I am happy to take your money in return for some magic water. Let me know.

As long as they're not 'treating' their children with it, and don't use homeopathy to treat anything serious like cancer, I don't see how it's dangerous.

It's sugar water. It's not dangerous. You can't overdose on it. If it makes them happy and if the placebo effect makes them feel cured (when they should be in fact thanking their immune system) then I see no problem. 

I don't say that homeopathy is dangerous, just statements like 'eczema goes deep and turns into asthma if you put cream on it'. it's up there with "vaccines give you autism". The use of homeopathy CAN be dangerous if you are not treating the actual illness.

http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/database-of-positive-homeopathy-research-studies/

Only for those who are interested. I am not going to go into the discussions about it. Who needs it will read it and make his own conclusions. I am not going to comment it.

Clearly there's someone who doesn't understand science at all.

The article should be titled: Homeopaths find another buzzword, after "Quantum Mechanics", to add to their claims.

Nanoparticles of what? Smog contains nanoparticles too, yet hardly you can consider smog a cure.

This article is pure junk.

The best homeopathy Dr in Geneva is by far:

Thérapie naturelle, naturopathie, Nutrition, ...
Dulac Daniel
rue Sautter 11, 1205 Genève
+41 22 789 39 00 *

for both children and adults.

or else, you can check this list:

http://tel.search.ch/?was=medecin+homeopathe&wo=geneve

Update.

Thank's to everybody for good and bad posts. I found a doctor in Geneva, but I didn't like her. Wasted a lot of money and it didn't help with the main problem. when I was in Moscow last summer, I found a good doctor there. He really helped! and even now he always answers my calls even if it's Sunday evening and if my daughter is ill, he always helps. 

David, adult man, but behaves like a 20 years old((

Hi Anna,

Here is the link to a well known homeopathy pharmacy in Eaux Vives. It's likely they will be able to help you. I recommend stopping by or giving them a call:

http://pharmacie-eauxvives.ch/p/laboratoire/?lang=en

All best,