From: Steves blog
Homeopath Steve Scrutton has recently published on his blog “Safe medicine” some dangerous advice about malarial treatment, vaccination and homeopathy.
The treatment and prevention of Malaria by Homeopathy has become a highly controversial subject, largely due to the nefarious activities of ‘Sense about Science’, a so-called ‘charity’ funded largely by large pharmaceutical companies. BBC News, who always meekly and cravenly support conventional, drug-based medicine, have broadcast several programmes attacking homeopathy for ‘daring’ to treat the disease! As a Homeopath (who incidentally has never been asked to treat malaria) I decided to look into the subject in order to compare what homeopathy and ConMed can offer the patient.
The first thing to say is that Homeopathy has been treating Malaria for a very long time. Sue Young has done research into this in her blog “A Homeopathic History of Malaria“.
The history of homeopathy and malaria are indeed intrinsically tied to one another but not perhaps in the way Scrutton suggests. Samuel Hahnemann, the inventor of homeopathy, made up his law of similars after observing that bark of the Cinchoa tree had medicinal properties in treating malaria. Coincidentally Quinine, the substance in the bark that caused this effect, caused similar symptoms to malaria when taken by healthy individuals.
This was simply a coincidence and not as Hahneman proposed a “natural law” but from this coincidence he created a whole system of medicine.
Scrutton goes on to list the side effects of anti-malarial drugs. To what end is not clear. That these drugs, that have effects, have side effects is entirely irrelevant to whether homeopathy is effective.
Homeopathy is not effective and taking homeopathy as a treatment or prophylactic for malaria is not only misguided it is dangerous and could be deadly.