Reply to Professor Dame Sally Davies who says ‘Homeopathy is Rubbish’

[Sheri Nakken]

this a letter from the same person to Professor Dame Sally Davies , in January
nearly the same but with a few added bits
Sheri

http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk/site/p ... is-rubbish
scroll down to the BOTTOM of the page

Reply to Professor Dame Sally Davies who says 'Homeopathy is Rubbish'
Monday, 28 January 2013 22:38

Please send your own letters in to Professor Dame Sally Davies

Professor Dame Sally Davies
Department of Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NS

28th January 2013

Dear Dame Sally,

I'm writing to you with regard to an article in which you were recently quoted as saying that homeopathy was rubbish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... ficer.html

Naturally, I'm well aware that this is a divisive subject, particularly amongst "health professionals". However, it seems to me that there are many who dismiss its efficacy potential purely on the basis of a lack of understanding of either its mode of action, or ignorance of the huge range of cases where it has demonstrated a great deal of success. I realise that coming across examples of a positive outcome can prove challenging when one's mind is already made up and your mind appears to be most decidedly made up.

Of even more concern is that you, with your stature and official position to uphold, chose to refer to homoeopaths as "peddlers". Maybe you'd care to explain what you mean?

I'm not going to get into a debate about the use of homoeopathy for treating diseases such as malaria. That's beyond my level of understanding and competence but that doesn't mean to say I don't understand a little of how it might work. I don't understand the precise mechanism of how it works, and it's possible that nobody does, yet, though it doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

You can argue all you like about homoeopathy being no different to placebo, but I can tell you this is incorrect. I appreciate you are referred to as Britain's senior doctor, but it doesn't mean that you are right in making such an assertion. You would be right to say that the £4 million which the NHS spends on homoeopathy isn't a lot, given the overall cost of the NHS running into tens of billions of pounds. In my experience and understanding, homoeopathy delivers phenomenal results from this very small outlay. Homoeopathic remedies do not cost anything compared to conventional pharmaceutical drugs.

Perhaps you aren't aware how homoeopathy is delivered by the NHS? Perhaps you think that the 400 doctors offering homoeopathy in the UK are only trained in and dealing in this one area? Maybe you don't appreciate that many of these doctors have been trained in both conventional treatments, at the start of their career, and later have added homoeopathic training and qualifications? Perhaps you aren't aware that many of the cases that these dually trained doctors end up treating are those which have reached the end of the road and the NHS has given up on? Often the patients in this category are those who have been effectively consigned to death, and sometimes these people are rescued. How do you price that?

My own daughter has recently had two very positive homoeopathic experiences. Firstly, after the NHS doctors had failed, a homoeopath has successfully restored her fertility cycle to a regular monthly pattern. More recently, she had a very successful homeopathic treatment for ringworm, with very rapid improvement. The conventional alternative is not appealing.

May I take the opportunity to explain how I come to be so passionately supportive of homoeopathy? My experience is with the animal kingdom. Not as a homoeopathic vet, but as a farmer. I've explained my experiences on this before, in many different places, as I'm determined to defend what I know is highly efficacious in treating a massive range of ailments, and was for me over a long period with a large dairy herd. We also used homoeopathy to treat the same herd's young stock (offspring).

Please be assured that these animals didn't fake either their illness or their recovery. They were genuinely ill, often with mastitis, and their recovery was quicker than under the normal antibiotic regime. This was all overseen by conventionally minded veterinary surgeons, who were always impressed with our animal welfare, even if they didn't understand how it was that homoeopathy was resolving the problems. I also participated in various trials, including one with Bristol University. I'm pleased to be able to tell you that our results stood us in the top half of the performance table.

For the 15 years in which homoeopathy was the mainstay of our healthcare policy, treating 300 dairy cows and 200 of their offspring, and administered by at least 12 people over that period of time, we saw an effective outcome in well over 90% of all the animals we treated. Furthermore, the results were often achieved much more quickly than would be the case using allopathic medication, without antibiotics, and therefore no residues ever found their way into the bulk milk sample. Sometimes the veterinary surgeons were perplexed as to how homoeopathy was achieving these positive results, but sadly they never let their scientific background bring them to ask deep questions and to learn why that might be. This always seemed a significant failing to me, as I thought a scientist would want to know why and to explore more deeply, rather than dismiss the reality of the situation based on their lack of understanding.

So may I suggest that in preference to dismissing out of hand something which it appears you know very little about, you instead turn your attention to areas where conventional medicine is falling short, is overpriced, is causing complications, as well as doctors who aren't reporting failures or side effects, etc.

That will find you a lot more than £4 million to play with if you attend to those issues. Furthermore, you will undoubtedly save a lot of people's lives and spare them the misery of all these complications and frequent side effects, many of which lead to death or a massively compromised life. I also have had experience in more than a few instances when an NHS doctor has not reported side-effects or problems. Therefore, given the wide-scale replication of this for people all over the UK, I can assure you that your data on safety and efficacy is fundamentally skewed. Would you not rate this to be an area worthy of greater investigation?

You were quick to dismiss homoeopathy. I hope you will not be similarly quick to ignore the points I make above. This is a polarised area of debate, but it is not made any better for having one side being totally dismissive of the other. For the record, I'm an ardent fan of conventional allopathic medication, but in the right place, and at the right time.

From an agricultural perspective, with the first case recently reported of MRSA being discovered on a farm, it seems even more pertinent for people to be promoting and utilising some excellent alternatives, such as homoeopathy.

Yours sincerely,
Oliver Dowding
Managing Director
SHEPTON FARMS Limited, Southdown, Shepton Montague, Wincanton, Somerset BA9 8JP.
http://www.tonicattack.com/
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

Next classes start April 18, 19, 25