Remember – you can talk to us about your problems completely free and without obligation. Please call 01823 272227 or email us at contact@mh-tc.com
What is homoeopathy?
Homoeopathy is based on the principle that like cures like. If you are feeling unwell or unhappy, homoeopathy recognises that your symptoms may be evidence of disharmony within your body.
Homoeopathy uses minute quantities of natural substances. Homoeopathic remedies are non-toxic, they do not cause side effects, and they aim at stimulating your body’s own healing powers.
Homoeopathy can safely be used in combination with conventional medicine – but if you have any concerns, do check with your GP. Papers in the Lancet and the British Medical Journal have confirmed homoeopathy’s effectiveness.
What to expect
We need to know all about you, so during our consultations with you we’ll ask you a wide range of questions about your lifestyle, diet, likes and dislikes, and medical history. These will be useful pointers towards a final diagnosis. Only when we have built up a complete picture of you will we prescribe a safe, gentle homoeopathic remedy. Your session will last from about 20 minutes to an hour.
Who and what we treat
Homoeopathy can be used to treat people of all ages, including children, for a wide range of physical and emotional problems.
Please note: we highly recommend that babies’ and children’s ailments are reported and discussed with your GP to ensure that your children have the very best possible care.
Contact us
To contact us, please call 01823 272227 or click the link below.
RESEARCH TESTIMONIALS
By the end of 2008, accounts of over 135 randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy had been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Of these trials, 70 were judged to have produced statistically significant results, and in 60 of the trials, patients given a homoeopathic medicine improved more than those given a placebo (R Mathie: The Research Evidence Base for Homoeopathy, British Homoeopathic Association 2008).
In the same article, Mathie finds research evidence from systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials to support the use of homoeopathic treatment for many conditions, including allergies, upper respiratory infections, sprains, ear infections, fibrositis, osteoarthritis, depression, and many others.
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCS-4HS1D2B-3&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1210124077&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=62d11e494724d22dea1b8d2a6e70e2a9]
A paper published in the International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (1997; 35: 296-301) found that homeopathic treatment can be more effective than conventional treatment for otitis media (acute ear infection) in children; the children who had homoeopathic treatment suffered less pain, and also had fewer ear infections over the following year, compared with those who received conventional treatment.
Again, a trial reported in the American Journal of Pain Management (1998; 8 (3): 89-91) showed that homoeopathic medicines can be more effective in relieving the pain of osteoarthritis than a standard pain-killing drug, and have no adverse side effects.
Various conditions
J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
http://www.garynull.com/documents/articlesfromorgs/homeopathy_scientific_research.htm
Three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal.4 This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.
The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us." Specifically, they found that:
--13 of 19 trials showed successful treatment of respiratory infections,
--6 of 7 trials showed positive results in treating other infections,
--5 of 7 trials showed improvement in diseases of the digestive system,
--5 of 5 showed successful treatment of hay fever,
--5 of 7 showed faster recovery after abdominal surgery,
--4 of 6 promoted healing in treating rheumatological disease,
--18 of 20 showed benefit in addressing pain or trauma,
--8 of 10 showed positive results in relieving mental or psychological
problems, and
--13 of 15 showed benefit from miscellaneous diagnoses.
Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy of these natural medicines, suggesting that the better designed and performed the studies were, the higher the likelihood that the medicines were found to be effective. Although people unfamiliar with research may be surprised to learn that most of the studies on homeopathy were flawed in one significant way or another, research in conventional medicine during the past 25 years has had a similar percentage of flawed studies.
With this knowledge, the researchers of the meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications."
Kleijnen reported in the British Medical Journal, in 1991, that of 107 trials of homoeopathy in which the methods of the study were scientifically adequate, 77 trials showed a positive response to homoeopathy. (British Medical Journal 1991, volume 302, pages 316-323.)
Linde reported in The Lancet, in 1997, that an analysis of 89 trials, covering the treatment of over 10,500 patients, gave results for homoeopathic treatment which were better than could be explained by placebo. (The Lancet 1994, volume 344, pages 1601-1606.)
Asthma
David Reilly, Morag Taylor, Neil Beattie, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?" Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
http://www.garynull.com/documents/articlesfromorgs/homeopathy_scientific_research.htm
A recent clinical trial evaluating homeopathic medicine was a unique study of the treatment of asthma. Researchers at the University of Glasgow used conventional allergy testing to discover which substances these asthma patients were most allergic to. Once this was determined, the subjects were randomized into treatment and placebo groups. Those patients chosen for treatment were given the 30c potency of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common substance was house dust mite). The researchers called this unique method of individualizing remedies "homeopathic immunotherapy" (homeopathic medicines are usually prescribed based on the patient's idiosyncratic symptoms, not on laboratory analysis or diagnostic categories). Subjects in this experiment were evaluated by both homeopathic and conventional physicians.
This study showed that 82% of the patients given a homeopathic medicine improved, while only 38% of patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. When asked if they felt the patient received the homeopathic medicine or the placebo, both the patients and the doctors tended to guess correctly.
Headaches
Bruno Brigo, and G. Serpelloni, "Homeopathic Treatment of Migraines: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Study of 60 Cases," Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy, March 1991, 1,2:98-106.
http://www.garynull.com/documents/articlesfromorgs/homeopathy_scientific_research.htm
A study of the homeopathic treatment of migraine headache was conducted in Italy. Sixty patients were randomized and entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients regularly filled out a questionnaire on the frequency, intensity, and characteristics of their head pain. They were prescribed a single dose of a 30c remedy at four separate times over two-week intervals. Eight remedies were considered, and prescribers were allowed to use any two with a patient. While only 17% of patients given a placebo experienced relief of their migraine pain, an impressive 93% of patients given an individualized homeopathic medicine experienced good results.
Rheumatoid arthritis
R.G. Gibson, S. Gibson, A.D. MacNeill, et al., "Homoeopathic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Evaluation by Double-blind Clinical Therapeutic Trial," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1980, 9:453-59.
http://www.garynull.com/documents/articlesfromorgs/homeopathy_scientific_research.htm
Another study that involved individualized homeopathic care was in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The study involved 46 patients. Two homeopathic physicians prescribed individually chosen medicines to each patient, though only half of them were given the real remedy, while the other half were given a placebo. The study found that 82% of those given an individualized homeopathic remedy experienced some relief of symptoms, while 21% of those given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief.
Pregnancy/Labour
P. Dorfman, M.N. Lasserre, M. and Tetau, "Preparation a l'accouchement par Homeopathie: Experimentation en double-insu versus Placebo," Cahiers de Biotherapie, April 1987, 94:77-81.
http://www.garynull.com/documents/articlesfromorgs/homeopathy_scientific_research.htm
An example of significant results from a homeopathic combination remedy was in the treatment of women during their ninth month of pregnancy. Ninety women were given the 5c potency of the following remedies: Caulophyllum, Arnica, Cimicifuga, Pulsatilla, and Gelsemium. They were given doses of this combination remedy twice daily during the ninth month. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that women given the homeopathic medicines experienced a 40% (!) shorter labor than those given a placebo. Also, the women given the placebo had four times (!) as many complications of labor as those given the homeopathic medicines.
Varicose Veins
E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, "Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial," Phlebology, 1990, 157-163.
http://www.garynull.com/documents/articlesfromorgs/homeopathy_scientific_research.htm
A study of 61 patients with varicose veins was performed double-blind and placebo-controlled. Three doses of a popular German combination of eight homeopathic medicines were given daily for 24 days. Measures were venous filling time, leg volume, and subjective symptoms. The study found that venous filling time improved in those given the homeopathic medicines by 44%, while it deteriorated in the placebo group by 18%. Other measures also had significant differences.
Acute diarrhea
American Scientific Journal, 1994
Jennifer Jacobs, M.D.
http://www.holisticonline.com/homeopathy/homeo_clinical.htm
The study, which was conducted in Nicaragua and included eighty-one children with acute diarrhea. All the children received standard antidehydration treatment for diarrhea, consisting of water containing salt and sugar. In addition, half the children received homeopathic treatment and half received a placebo. The study confirmed homeopathy's effectiveness: the recovery time for children receiving homeopathic treatment was 20 percent faster than those receiving the placebo, reducing the bout of diarrhea by one day. These results are heartening because diarrhea is the leading cause of death in developing countries such as Nicaragua.
Respiratory infection, Digestive system, Hay fever, Rheumatological disease
British Medical Journal, 1991
http://www.holisticonline.com/homeopathy/homeo_clinical.htm
The British Medical Journal published an analysis of 107 clinical studies published between 1966 and 1990. The authors found that in 81 of the experiments, the homeopathic treatments were successful. Even when they included only the 23 studies that they considered to be of the highest quality, the vast majority of these (15) showed positive results. Here's how the results broke down: 13 out of the 19 trials of respiratory infection treatment were effective, 6 out of 7 were positive for other infections, 5 out of 7 were positive for digestive system treatment, 5 out of 5 were successful for hay fever, 5 out of 7 showed accelerated recovery after surgery, 4 out of 6 helped in rheumatological disease, 18 of 20 were beneficial for pain or traumatic injury; and 8 out of 10 worked for mental or psychological problems.
