'HOMEOPATHY KILLED MY WIFE' in the Daily mail

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

The front page says Homeopathy 'How alternative medicine killed my wife'

Pages 40 and 41 show the headlines Killed by Homeopathy?

It's a story about a woman who was diagnosed with breast cancer and
decided
against conventional medicine..

"....She told me that a homeopath, the wife of a business associate of
mine,
had
had a lumpectomy two years before, but said if she could have her time
again
she
would not have had surgery. She believed homeopathy cured everything,
and it
seems to me, convinced Julia too. As I looked into homeopathy I
developed a
grudging acceptance that there might be something to it. It seemed to
work
on
the same principle as a flue jab and the disagreement between
homeopaths and
the
medical establishment lay in the degree of dilution of the active
ingredient.

Julia could be obstinate and I never felt I could force her to do
anything.
She didn't even waver when her GP banged on our door after discovering
she
had
refused surgery. The doctor was so exasperated that she told Julia
she'd be
dead in five years.

But Julia went ahead and consulted the homeopath who had a practice in
West
London once a week. After she died I found drawers stuffed with packets
and
bottles of little white pills, all of which looked exactly the same, but
were
marked liver, spleen, kidney and so on. There never seemed to be any
tangible
benefits from the homeopathy, which is probably why Julia started trying
extreme
treatments.

Before long she was consulting a second homeopath, a follower of a
famous
Indian
guru Sia Baba, who called herself Mrs Sai. She operated from a terraced
house
in West London.

Every Saturday I drove to the house to collect phials of pills, costing
£7.00
each. After spending several thousand pounds over three years, I got so
frustrated I asked the practitioner when we might expect a cure.

She replied 'Your wife is already cured. She doesn't have cancer any
more'.
When I told Julia this she was so furious she threw out everything
connected
with Sai Baba.

The story then goes on to talk about Vita Fons II water company and the
cost
and he says....

Reading from them (letters he had found after his wife died) made me
ill as
I
realised they were telling her splash this water over you and send
another
cheque please. Using faith for commercial purposes in this way is
immoral
and
obscene. If a parish priest tried to sell Holy Water for £210 a litre he
would
be arrested. But if you go down the alternative route, almost anything
is
fair
game.

He then describes how his wife consulted a psychic surgeon and distance
healers
who had charged her £60.00 for a 90 minute session.

...Once Julia had set off on the slippery slops, other practitioners
swarmed
in
like parasites, I presume because they pass on details of customers.
Some
may
be well intentioned, but they are making money out of vulnerable people.

......After the funeral I found dozens of boxes of the Vita Fons II
water
hidden
in her wardrobe and also a small pill box with two white tablets and a
piece
of
paper saying: Berlin Wall. Toxic. Do not Touch. This is a homeopathic
remedy
containing minute fragments of the actual Berlin Wall, which is
supposed to
help
people with a lot of conflict in their lives. I had no idea how it is
supposed
to treat women with breast cancer. I also found credit card bills for
more
than £12,000 which was only a fraction of what she must have spent over
the
ten
years of her illness. I feel angry, but not with Julia. I'm angry with
those
I believe exploited her deepest fears. All these people are allowed to
operate
because there is no regulatory system and their claims are so
amorphous. It
is
mumbo jumbo, but when you are terminally ill you can come to believe
it. I
think Trading Standards bodies should take a closer look. But I don't
know
what they can do when someone is basically claiming to sell 'God in a
jar'.
I
think these people should be exposed for making a fortune out of
something
that
is morally and ethically sick.

Homeopathy is different because it claims to be a physical treatment -
and
for
anybody to be allowed to treat people without medical training makes no
sense.
If homeopathy is legitimised, it should only be in addition to a
conventional
medical qualification. Also administering anything which purports to
heal
without a physical diagnosis is wrong.

I believe practitioners should acknowledge that there's a point where
alternative methods not only fail but can become dangerous and that
point
comes
when they are being used by someone like Julia instead of conventional
treatment. They have a responsibility to people who may not be acting in
their
own best interests..

The British Homeopathy Association represents medically qualified
homeopathic
practitioners. A spokesman says:

This sounds like a tragic case and we in no way condone what has
happened.
Mrs
de Vaat should never have been advised that she should rely on
homeopathy to
cure her breast cancer. We represent 1,400 homeopaths and they are all
medically qualified. None would ever suggest that a patient stops using
conventional treatments after a cancer diagnosis. Homeopathy may be used
alongside it. Unfortunately, not all homeopaths are medically qualified
and
there is no statutory regulation. This means anyone can set up as a
homeopath
without scrutiny. To check a practitioner is listed in the Faculty of
Homeopaths, visit www.trusthomeopathy.org or phone the helpline 0870 444
3950
Bob de Vaatt is the author of Fake Honesty
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

[Shannon Nelson]

Strange and sad from many perspectives... FTR *is* there a British
Homeopathic Association, and what is a "medically qualified" homeopath?
Shannon

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

A medically qualified homeopath is a DOCTOR
Most homeopaths in the`uk are 'Lay' homeopaths
Registered and Highly skilled.
The BHA which stands up for doctors doesn't like is because we aren't
doctors
Simon
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

[Rochelle Marsden]

Usually they mention at least the Society of Homeopaths which is the biggest Society for 4 yr trained homeopaths in UK although Simon belongs to a different one ARH - I think. The thing is that they should be mentioning our Registers not just the Doctor's Faculty register. A lot of the Doctors prescribe homeopathy in an allopathic manner anyway e.g. arthritis = Rhus Tox

Rochelle

[Shannon Nelson]

Ah, of course.
Thanks!
Shannon

[Nancy Siciliana]

Yes but I think we can all see the political motives behind seeking out an
"opinion" from a group of DOCTORS who want to look authoritative as
"homeopaths" (when they don't really use it as they should). These DOCTOR
homeopaths are in the minority, to be sure. Lay homeopaths, the ones who
are more likely to practice "by the book" and get results, are the norm:
they're the ones getting the attention, and the business. They're the ones
the DOCTORS want to stop.

It is clearly a case of conventional medicine freaking out about the threat
homeopaths pose to conventional medical treatments, schools,
pharmaceuticals, careers, etc.

The timing of the article (and all the recent "homeopathy is bogus" articles
being widely publicized at the moment) is telling, the "authorities"
consulted are also telling, and the publishers of the anti-homeopathy news
are also very "telling". If homeopaths and their representative
organizations really want to see this kind of libel stop, they've got to
become much more media and marketing savvy. It's a waste of time to
actually try to counter these attacks with protests of our scientific
legitimacy--as I said before, many of the publications now publishing
"nonesense" articles about homeopathy once generated income by publishing
articles lauding homeopathy as effective and on some kind of solid
scientific ground...the science itself is irrelevant. The Lancet article
recently published denounced homeopathy without the aid of "science" to back
its claims at all, really. When are we going to realize it isn't about the
idea that homeopathy isn't scientific? It's about the idea that Homeopathy
is threatening to a very lucrative and powerful medical establishment which
relies on continued subsidization and legitimization in order to remain
authoritative and profitable.
That's what we need to educate ourselves about. The general public? They
don't care about science either: when they see an autistic child leave
autism behind, or a patient on the verge of suffocating to death suddenly
revive and become well enough to live normally for years after a homeopathic
remedy is given, they don't look for the "science" behind homeopathy. They
just seek out homeopathic treatment because they know it works, no matter
what anyone says.

[Shannon Nelson]

But let's not pan doctor-homeopaths as a group either... Some *have*
made the leap from "there" to "here", and practice very
"Organon-ically" indeed!

[Nancy Siciliana]

This very well may be true: and it isn't my intention to "pan" these
doctor-homeopaths. It is my intention to discredit and pan doctor
homeopaths and/or naturopath homeopaths who put forth and publicize their
idea that they alone are entitled/skilled/legitimate to practitioners of
homeopathy. These people actively discredit lay practitioners of
homeopathy, who are often far more skilled and adept and successful with the
use of homeopathy than they--with all their official medical
accreditations--are or ever will be.

It's clear to me the BHA feature the MDs who've seen the financial gains to
be made by claiming the use of homeopathy, and wish to maintain exclusive
rights to that gain. They don't want to compete with lay practitioners, who
are seen as "the threat". There's a big push where I live for Naturopaths
to be seen as the only "legitimate" homeopaths (despite the fact that most
are not trained as homeopaths). It's the same mentality at work.

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

EXACTLY!

SIMON

snip?When are we going to realize it isn't about the