Zitat von Gabriele_E am 27.06.2007 um 15:55:08:[size=12]
Wenn Sie weiter durch Wikipedia suchen, werden Sie finden, dass
praktisch alle alternativen Heilmethoden dort als Pseudowissenschaft
dargestellt wird.
Komisch, wenn sich
jemand gegen "alternativmedizinische" Verfahren ausspricht ist er
parteiisch, und wenn jemand dafür ist ist er "freidenkender Mensch" der
"über den Tellerrand schauen kann" und mindestens mit Einstein-,
Galileo- oder Schweitzer-Zitaten zu versehen.
Ich
halte mich da lieber an Fakten. Und wenn ein "alternativmedizinsches"
Verfahren wissenschaftlich anerkannt sein möchte muss es auch den
entsprechenden Tests standhalten.
Das ist bei wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen zum Thema Homöopathie herausgekommen, größtenteils von Homöopathen selbst:
CONCLUSION: The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a
placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials.
DISCUSSION: The homeopathic combination therapy tested in this study
did not significantly reduce the duration or severity of acute diarrhea
in Honduran children.
Twenty-seven patients with
chronic lichen simplex involving various parts of the body were
treated. Hydrocotyle was prescribed to 21 patients in different
potencies (6c, 30c, 200c, 1M, 10M), Thuja to three patients (1M, 10M),
Graphites (6c), Kali bich (30c) and Sulphur (200c) to one patient each
during 1 year study period. Only two patients showed complete
improvement with Thuja and one with Graphites. In other cases, the
response was limited to partial relief itching.
CONCLUSIONS: Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make
a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line
treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research
is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence
does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like
homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.
CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive search demonstrates that the evidence on
the benefit of homeopathy in anxiety and anxiety disorders is limited.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study provides no evidence to support a
therapeutic effect of individually selected homeopathic remedies in
children with ADHD.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study there
was no effect over placebo for self treatment with one of three self
selected, ultramolecular homeopathic medicines in preventing childhood
URTI.
CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.
CONCLUSION: The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of
patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of
placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence
that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced
homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the
quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to
conventional treatment in primary care.
The results of
this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over
placebo in reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in
patients undergoing elective hand surgery
CONCLUSION: Homoeopathic immunotherapy is not effective in the treatment of patients with asthma.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that active homeopathy improves the
symptoms of RA, over 3 months, in patients attending a routine clinic
who are stabilized on NSAIDs or DMARDs.
There is no indication of a specific, or of a delayed effect of homeopathy.
CONCLUSION: This pilot study failed to find evidence that mercury 12C
causes significantly more symptoms in healthy volunteers than placebo.
CONCLUSION: There is no indication that belladonna 30CH produces
symptoms different from placebo or from no intervention. Symptoms of a
homeopathic pathogenetic trial (HPT) are most likely chance
fluctuations.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, with this
dosage, we did not observe any preventive effect of homeopathic Arnica
CH5 on poststripping haematomas.
This pilot study does not demonstrate a clear proving reaction for Belladonna C30 versus placebo
It was concluded that “Tinnitus” could not be shown to be more effective than the matched placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: Statements and methods of alternative medicine--as far as
they concern observable clinical phenomena--can be tested by scientific
methods. When such tests yield negative results, as in the studies
presented herein the particular method or statement should be
abandoned. Otherwise one would run the risk of supporting superstition
and quackery.
CONCLUSION: Homeopathic Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness following long-distance running.
CONCLUSION: The study did not find benefit of the homoeopathic remedy in DOMS.
Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic treatment.
We conclude that arnica in homoeopathic potency had no effect on postoperative recovery in the context of our study.
CONCLUSION: There was no apparent difference between the effects of
homoeopathic therapy and placebo in children with common warts under
the conditions of this study.
CONCLUSIONS--No positive
evidence was found for efficacy of homoeopathic treatment on pain and
other inflammatory events after an acute soft tissue and bone injury
inflicted by a surgical intervention.
Group evaluation showed no clearcut differences.
CONCLUSION: The homeopathic treatment was no more effective than the placebo treatment of plantar warts.
Seiten: 1
Forum Impfen (Gelesen: 201 mal)
