I’m confused. All over this site we’re told that homeopathy is not medicine and not science because there’s a large element of it that’s purely belief and, in an case, there’s no active ingredients to speak of. However, you’re saying that homeopaths can and do prescribe active ingredients.

If there some active homeopathic ingredients are harmful, if misapplied, are those effective if used properly? Are there homeopathic active ingredients that work and those that don’t work?

Is this Zicam stuff a treatment prescribed and developed by homeopaths (registered or otherwise) or is it something that’s been developed by others to sell as a homeopathic remedy? Has it made its way on to a government list because it seems like a homeopathic remedy? Do homeopaths regard Zicam as homeopathic?

Unintelligent Designer,

Homeopathy is defined as a system of ‘medicine’ where substances that would bring about symptoms in a healthy person are used – heavily diluted – to treat an unwell person who already has those symptoms. The fact that there is no active ingredient in the solutions that homeopaths would typically use (Hahnemann recommended 30C and beyond) is only a prevalent consequence of their methodology, and not a prerequisite.

The manufacturers of Zicam state that their products are a 2X homeopathic solution, “packaged and distributed in full accordance with the HPUS”.

For criticism, see Dr. Iris R. Bell in the AP article. She says that most homeopathic remedies are much safer than conventional pharmaceuticals. You and me know why, of course.

Thanks for that, WH. I see what you mean. However, I was wondering whether homeopaths regard Zicam as homeopathy. This is an important point.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQ2bZ11tGtoiKx6BO5K70Lx1ETmgD98SK27G0:
“Dr. Iris R. Bell, a psychiatrist and homeopathy researcher at the University of Arizona, Tucson, says the suspended Zicam products deliver the homeopathic ingredient right into the nose — not an accepted homeopathic method. She says the FDA should act against such products.”

She says the Zicam delivery method doesn’t accord with homeopathic practice.

The US National Center for Homeopathy says Zicam isn’t homeopathy:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,341

Skeptico says Zicam doesn’t sound like a homeopathic preparation:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/if_it_has_any_i.html

We’re talking here about unscrupulous producer of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals that makes a bad product within state-registered legal definitions.

We’re not talking about an over-the-counter preparation registered as homeopathic, not a homeopathic preparation made and prescribed by homeopaths. There’s a difference between those two things. 30C is a world away from 2x.

I think you do a disservice to the facts by suggesting that the harm caused by a state-registered pharmaceutical that’s claimed to be homeopathic provides evidence that homeopathy is potentially dangerous.

“The fact that there is no active ingredient in the solutions that homeopaths would typically use (Hahnemann recommended 30C and beyond) is only a prevalent consequence of their methodology, and not a prerequisite.”

Here, you’re offering a similar argument to the one the Zicam manufacturers use in protecting their product as homeopathic. They’re following the regulations to the letter.

I think we need to know whether Zicam is made by homeopaths and whether a wide community of homeopaths recognise it and recommend it as valid in their system of treatment. If they don’t, your linkage of Zicam, which is shown to cause harm to people, to their practice is at least unfair and at worst disingenuous.

The line of argument from debunkers and sceptics over the years is that homeopathy doesn’t (in fact, can’t) work. Either it can or it can’t. You seem to be saying that it can work. But you’re offering this opinion based on a 2x product. What about 30C preparations? Do you agree there’s a difference between 2x and 30C homeopathic products?

So how many other 2x products are there? Are these harmful? How many 30C preparations are harmful?

Science is needed here, soon.

Lastly, I think we need to know who owns Matrixx Intiatives, the company that produces Zicam? Is it a small-scale operation run by deluded homeopathic enthusiasts? Or is it a subsidiary of a larger pharmaceutical company? If it’s not a subsidiary, where did it get the capital to succesfully launch an over-the-counter medication in such a cut-throat market?

By the way, I’m not a homeopath and don’t use homeopathic remedies.

Unintelligent Designer,

What I point out is that a 2X solution may very well have an active ingredient present. This was so in Zicam’s case, because a lot of people were harmed. At no point am I saying that homeopathy works: a cold remedy that destroys one’s sense of smell is certainly not my idea of successful treatment.

My association of Zicam with homeopathy is certainly not unfair. What Royal Copeland sowed has sadly been reaped, and I have already stated that Matrixx Initiatives is “trading objectionably on an already objectionable concept”.

“The line of argument from debunkers and sceptics over the years is that homeopathy doesn’t (in fact, can’t) work. Either it can or it can’t. You seem to be saying that it can work. But you’re offering this opinion based on a 2x product. What about 30C preparations? Do you agree there’s a difference between 2x and 30C homeopathic products?”

UD I think you’re bringing up an unrelated issue. The above article isn’t about whether or not homeopathic remedies work, but the consequences of homeopathic remedies gaining automatic FDA approval. The FDA doesn’t just establish the efficacy of medical remedies, it also establishes their safety. Homeopathic remedies don’t have to go through the same long clinical trials to establish their safety before they hit the market. And in the case of this nasal spray, that means an unsafe product was let loose on the market.

??? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????????? ? ? ?????? ???????????
———————————————————
????????? [url=http://www.gaurastyle.kiev.ua]????????? ?????[/url], ???????????.
??????????? [url=http://www.starstudio.com.ua]????????? ?????[/url], ???????????.

“For criticism, see Dr. Iris R. Bell in the AP article. She says that most homeopathic remedies are much safer than conventional pharmaceuticals. You and me know why, of course.”

Most homeopathic remedies are water. They are “safe” only if you’re treating for dehydration. They treat nothing else.

Once you start getting into these lower succussions, the remedies contain an active ingredient and they should be controlled by the FDA.

O Really Tom!! Have u ever tried Homeopathic Medicines??? They are not diluted but POTENTISED, which means by the process of successions given, the kinetic energy of the molecules is raised to many folds. Here it differs from simple Dilution, in which only water is added but not potentized.

Homeopathic medicines do work and many clinical trials are on to feed the rationalistic minds. Under WHO only trials have been conducted and it had been recommended to use them. How can someone treat ailments ranging from coryza, cough, acne to asthma, pneumonia, kidney stones by Placebo Effect… This type of comments surely doesnot suit to intelligent people li you, Tom!!

And Homeopathy is surely a hit on fortunes of pharmaceutical Companies due to it’s cost-effectiveness that’s why giants are behind it…

Every year there is 20-25% economic growth and homeopathic Heathcare industry is going to be somewhere near 52,000 crore by 2017, just because of it’s Placebo Effect… FUNNY!!!

I recommend you a thing, please try this so called Placebo under a good reputed clinician and feel changes in you.

Good Luck!!

Priyanka, Good luck with that. You enjoy your homeopathic “cure” and I will enjoy modern Western medicine.

I will come to your cremation with flowers for your family. Rest in peace.

@Priyanka: “which means by the process of successions given, the kinetic energy of the molecules is raised to many folds.”

So the solution gets hotter? Well, I suppose it would really, if you go around banging it against things. I’m just not sure what possible health value that has, since it’s going to cool down pretty rapidly.

Hey, thanks for the remarkable content. Honestly, about five months back I started taking reading blogs and there may be just so much nonsense available. I appreciate which you put terrific subject material out that’s clear and well-written. Wonderful luck and thank you for the terrific document!!!

I’m confused. All over this site we’re told that homeopathy is not medicine and not science because there’s a large element of it that’s purely belief and, in an case, there’s no active ingredients to speak of. However, you’re saying that homeopaths can and do prescribe active ingredients.

If there some active homeopathic ingredients are harmful, if misapplied, are those effective if used properly? Are there homeopathic active ingredients that work and those that don’t work?

Is this Zicam stuff a treatment prescribed and developed by homeopaths (registered or otherwise) or is it something that’s been developed by others to sell as a homeopathic remedy? Has it made its way on to a government list because it seems like a homeopathic remedy? Do homeopaths regard Zicam as homeopathic?

Unintelligent Designer,

Homeopathy is defined as a system of ‘medicine’ where substances that would bring about symptoms in a healthy person are used – heavily diluted – to treat an unwell person who already has those symptoms. The fact that there is no active ingredient in the solutions that homeopaths would typically use (Hahnemann recommended 30C and beyond) is only a prevalent consequence of their methodology, and not a prerequisite.

The manufacturers of Zicam state that their products are a 2X homeopathic solution, “packaged and distributed in full accordance with the HPUS”.

For criticism, see Dr. Iris R. Bell in the AP article. She says that most homeopathic remedies are much safer than conventional pharmaceuticals. You and me know why, of course.

Thanks for that, WH. I see what you mean. However, I was wondering whether homeopaths regard Zicam as homeopathy. This is an important point.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQ2bZ11tGtoiKx6BO5K70Lx1ETmgD98SK27G0:
“Dr. Iris R. Bell, a psychiatrist and homeopathy researcher at the University of Arizona, Tucson, says the suspended Zicam products deliver the homeopathic ingredient right into the nose — not an accepted homeopathic method. She says the FDA should act against such products.”

She says the Zicam delivery method doesn’t accord with homeopathic practice.

The US National Center for Homeopathy says Zicam isn’t homeopathy:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,341

Skeptico says Zicam doesn’t sound like a homeopathic preparation:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/if_it_has_any_i.html

We’re talking here about unscrupulous producer of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals that makes a bad product within state-registered legal definitions.

We’re not talking about an over-the-counter preparation registered as homeopathic, not a homeopathic preparation made and prescribed by homeopaths. There’s a difference between those two things. 30C is a world away from 2x.

I think you do a disservice to the facts by suggesting that the harm caused by a state-registered pharmaceutical that’s claimed to be homeopathic provides evidence that homeopathy is potentially dangerous.

“The fact that there is no active ingredient in the solutions that homeopaths would typically use (Hahnemann recommended 30C and beyond) is only a prevalent consequence of their methodology, and not a prerequisite.”

Here, you’re offering a similar argument to the one the Zicam manufacturers use in protecting their product as homeopathic. They’re following the regulations to the letter.

I think we need to know whether Zicam is made by homeopaths and whether a wide community of homeopaths recognise it and recommend it as valid in their system of treatment. If they don’t, your linkage of Zicam, which is shown to cause harm to people, to their practice is at least unfair and at worst disingenuous.

The line of argument from debunkers and sceptics over the years is that homeopathy doesn’t (in fact, can’t) work. Either it can or it can’t. You seem to be saying that it can work. But you’re offering this opinion based on a 2x product. What about 30C preparations? Do you agree there’s a difference between 2x and 30C homeopathic products?

So how many other 2x products are there? Are these harmful? How many 30C preparations are harmful?

Science is needed here, soon.

Lastly, I think we need to know who owns Matrixx Intiatives, the company that produces Zicam? Is it a small-scale operation run by deluded homeopathic enthusiasts? Or is it a subsidiary of a larger pharmaceutical company? If it’s not a subsidiary, where did it get the capital to succesfully launch an over-the-counter medication in such a cut-throat market?

By the way, I’m not a homeopath and don’t use homeopathic remedies.

Unintelligent Designer,

What I point out is that a 2X solution may very well have an active ingredient present. This was so in Zicam’s case, because a lot of people were harmed. At no point am I saying that homeopathy works: a cold remedy that destroys one’s sense of smell is certainly not my idea of successful treatment.

My association of Zicam with homeopathy is certainly not unfair. What Royal Copeland sowed has sadly been reaped, and I have already stated that Matrixx Initiatives is “trading objectionably on an already objectionable concept”.

“The line of argument from debunkers and sceptics over the years is that homeopathy doesn’t (in fact, can’t) work. Either it can or it can’t. You seem to be saying that it can work. But you’re offering this opinion based on a 2x product. What about 30C preparations? Do you agree there’s a difference between 2x and 30C homeopathic products?”

UD I think you’re bringing up an unrelated issue. The above article isn’t about whether or not homeopathic remedies work, but the consequences of homeopathic remedies gaining automatic FDA approval. The FDA doesn’t just establish the efficacy of medical remedies, it also establishes their safety. Homeopathic remedies don’t have to go through the same long clinical trials to establish their safety before they hit the market. And in the case of this nasal spray, that means an unsafe product was let loose on the market.

??? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????????? ? ? ?????? ???????????
———————————————————
????????? [url=http://www.gaurastyle.kiev.ua]????????? ?????[/url], ???????????.
??????????? [url=http://www.starstudio.com.ua]????????? ?????[/url], ???????????.

“For criticism, see Dr. Iris R. Bell in the AP article. She says that most homeopathic remedies are much safer than conventional pharmaceuticals. You and me know why, of course.”

Most homeopathic remedies are water. They are “safe” only if you’re treating for dehydration. They treat nothing else.

Once you start getting into these lower succussions, the remedies contain an active ingredient and they should be controlled by the FDA.

O Really Tom!! Have u ever tried Homeopathic Medicines??? They are not diluted but POTENTISED, which means by the process of successions given, the kinetic energy of the molecules is raised to many folds. Here it differs from simple Dilution, in which only water is added but not potentized.

Homeopathic medicines do work and many clinical trials are on to feed the rationalistic minds. Under WHO only trials have been conducted and it had been recommended to use them. How can someone treat ailments ranging from coryza, cough, acne to asthma, pneumonia, kidney stones by Placebo Effect… This type of comments surely doesnot suit to intelligent people li you, Tom!!

And Homeopathy is surely a hit on fortunes of pharmaceutical Companies due to it’s cost-effectiveness that’s why giants are behind it…

Every year there is 20-25% economic growth and homeopathic Heathcare industry is going to be somewhere near 52,000 crore by 2017, just because of it’s Placebo Effect… FUNNY!!!

I recommend you a thing, please try this so called Placebo under a good reputed clinician and feel changes in you.

Good Luck!!

Priyanka, Good luck with that. You enjoy your homeopathic “cure” and I will enjoy modern Western medicine.

I will come to your cremation with flowers for your family. Rest in peace.

@Priyanka: “which means by the process of successions given, the kinetic energy of the molecules is raised to many folds.”

So the solution gets hotter? Well, I suppose it would really, if you go around banging it against things. I’m just not sure what possible health value that has, since it’s going to cool down pretty rapidly.

Hey, thanks for the remarkable content. Honestly, about five months back I started taking reading blogs and there may be just so much nonsense available. I appreciate which you put terrific subject material out that’s clear and well-written. Wonderful luck and thank you for the terrific document!!!

The World Health Organisation has also warned against using homeopathy use:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8211925.stm

“People with conditions such as HIV, TB and malaria should not rely on homeopathic treatments, the World Health Organization has warned.

It was responding to calls from young researchers who fear the promotion of homeopathy in the developing world could put people’s lives at risk.

The group Voice of Young Science Network has written to health ministers to set out the WHO view.

WHO TB experts said homeopathy had “no place” in treatment of the disease.

In a letter to the WHO in June, the medics from the UK and Africa said: “We are calling on the WHO to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating TB, infant diarrhoea, influenza, malaria and HIV.

“Homeopathy does not protect people from, or treat, these diseases.

“Those of us working with the most rural and impoverished people of the world already struggle to deliver the medical help that is needed.

“When homeopathy stands in place of effective treatment, lives are lost.”

Dr Robert Hagan is a researcher in biomolecular science at the University of St Andrews and a member of Voice of Young Science Network, which is part of the charity Sense About Science campaigning for “evidence-based” care.

He said: “We need governments around the world to recognise the dangers of promoting homeopathy for life-threatening illnesses.

“We hope that by raising awareness of the WHO’s position on homeopathy we will be supporting those people who are taking a stand against these potentially disastrous practices.”

‘No evidence’

Dr Mario Raviglione, director of the Stop TB department at the WHO, said: “Our evidence-based WHO TB treatment/management guidelines, as well as the International Standards of Tuberculosis Care do not recommend use of homeopathy.”

The doctors had also complained that homeopathy was being promoted as a treatment for diarrhoea in children.

But a spokesman for the WHO department of child and adolescent health and development said: “We have found no evidence to date that homeopathy would bring any benefit.

“Homeopathy does not focus on the treatment and prevention of dehydration – in total contradiction with the scientific basis and our recommendations for the management of diarrhoea.”

Dr Nick Beeching, a specialist in infectious diseases at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, said: “Infections such as malaria, HIV and tuberculosis all have a high mortality rate but can usually be controlled or cured by a variety of proven treatments, for which there is ample experience and scientific trial data.

“There is no objective evidence that homeopathy has any effect on these infections, and I think it is irresponsible for a healthcare worker to promote the use of homeopathy in place of proven treatment for any life-threatening illness.” “

The World Health Organisation has also warned against using homeopathy use:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8211925.stm

“People with conditions such as HIV, TB and malaria should not rely on homeopathic treatments, the World Health Organization has warned.

It was responding to calls from young researchers who fear the promotion of homeopathy in the developing world could put people’s lives at risk.

The group Voice of Young Science Network has written to health ministers to set out the WHO view.

WHO TB experts said homeopathy had “no place” in treatment of the disease.

In a letter to the WHO in June, the medics from the UK and Africa said: “We are calling on the WHO to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating TB, infant diarrhoea, influenza, malaria and HIV.

“Homeopathy does not protect people from, or treat, these diseases.

“Those of us working with the most rural and impoverished people of the world already struggle to deliver the medical help that is needed.

“When homeopathy stands in place of effective treatment, lives are lost.”

Dr Robert Hagan is a researcher in biomolecular science at the University of St Andrews and a member of Voice of Young Science Network, which is part of the charity Sense About Science campaigning for “evidence-based” care.

He said: “We need governments around the world to recognise the dangers of promoting homeopathy for life-threatening illnesses.

“We hope that by raising awareness of the WHO’s position on homeopathy we will be supporting those people who are taking a stand against these potentially disastrous practices.”

‘No evidence’

Dr Mario Raviglione, director of the Stop TB department at the WHO, said: “Our evidence-based WHO TB treatment/management guidelines, as well as the International Standards of Tuberculosis Care do not recommend use of homeopathy.”

The doctors had also complained that homeopathy was being promoted as a treatment for diarrhoea in children.

But a spokesman for the WHO department of child and adolescent health and development said: “We have found no evidence to date that homeopathy would bring any benefit.

“Homeopathy does not focus on the treatment and prevention of dehydration – in total contradiction with the scientific basis and our recommendations for the management of diarrhoea.”

Dr Nick Beeching, a specialist in infectious diseases at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, said: “Infections such as malaria, HIV and tuberculosis all have a high mortality rate but can usually be controlled or cured by a variety of proven treatments, for which there is ample experience and scientific trial data.

“There is no objective evidence that homeopathy has any effect on these infections, and I think it is irresponsible for a healthcare worker to promote the use of homeopathy in place of proven treatment for any life-threatening illness.” “

I thought the guidance excluded chronic back pain? A minor detail, I know…

The BBC article mentions a choice of 3 complementary therapies. If it was down to excercise or acupuncture, I wonder what most people will go for?
Surely the implication that it is a placebo would make the NHS think twice? Unless they are happily promoting bogus treatments these days (ahem)

Re the Beacon. You are right, the guidance doesn’t mention ‘chronic’ back pain (so I’ve amended the above article), but it does talk about ‘persistent back pain’.

I wonder how many of the sceptics have actually tried acupuncture from a reputable practitioner.

Having tried acupuncture as a last resort for back pain, for which the NHS could only advise radical surgery, I found it to be both effective and lasting in its effects.

If that were down to a placebo effect, then I’d imagine that the anti-inflammatories and painkillers previously prescribed by my doctor – and which I fully expected to resolve the problem – would have worked just as well. They didn’t.

As for proven efficacy – if those of us who have tried acupuncture and found it to work are to be written off as deluded beneficiaries of a placebo effect, then trty the copious body of research available on the World Health Organisation website.

It works, and has been proven to work, when administered by well-trained professionals, as licensed by the British Acupuncture Council.

Did you know that 95% of percentages used in 95% of “studies, reports, [email protected] or whatever this Will Heaven has claimed to have conducted, are figures pulled out of the air.
What are you an expert on Mr Heaven? apart from radical spin journalism see following quote (reported by Counterknowledge.com and the BMJ”Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear.” In other words, scientists do not know whether acupuncture works like a placebo, or if it has a real biological effect. I ask why are you spinning acupuncture in this way. Do you perhaps have any connections to the Drug industry which is squirming due to the fact that Drug free remedies are increasing in popularity? If this is your main job then well done. i’d love to sit at a pc all typing rubbish and making it sound official with the usual newspaper dribble, The Catchy headline, All the bullet points kept negative to hit home the message, the odd figure to make it sound official and a sceptical negative anecdotial conclusion. Its a rubbish article but whats more worrying is that people may read it as fact and tell others it as fact. i’ll be keeing my eye out for your articles.

As you all know acupuncture has been around of thousands of years, if there were nothing to it don’t you think it would have gone away by now? You cannot deny the undeniable benefits of natural forms of healthcare.

That acupuncture is effective in blocking out pain is beyond dispute. People have surgery with acupuncture alone. The real issue is not whether acupuncture is effective in blocking pain but whether the relief is persistent.

Acupuncture does work i should know i have ankylosing spondylitis and have ONLY become pain free because of Acupuncture, i now only need a few repeat treatments when the pain comes back and the pain that does come back is minimal compared to the pain i used to get.
I would have loved Acupuncture to be on the NHS instead of paying out a small fortune, Acupuncture does help allot of ailments as well as back pain.
You Mr Heaven have no idea i presume of what it is like to have your whole body in pain, so much so you can`t get out of bed by yourself because your spine muscles have weakened and be in constant pain everyday and then oneday i visited an acupuncturist after my mam got cured of sciatica through Acupuncture and after allot of treatment i am ALLOT better and more often than not either pain free or nearly pain free, all because of Acupuncture.

Paul, I think the last one locked the doors and shut off the lights a couple of months ago.
All thats left here is tumbleweed and and an exchange of invective over the holocaust and zionism.
I assume the site staff have all moved on.

Acupuncture works, and it has done so for hundred of years. It also saved me from spending the rest of my life in a wheelchair. Could have gone for a expensive and ridiculously dangerous operation I guess….

Acupuncture has been known in China for ages, my mom introduced me to acupunture and i am since been amazed how it can reduce my migraine.

What a joke. Acupuncture works, it has for thousands of years. It saved me when I had major back issues, when NHS simply send me home with painkillers usually given to heroin addicts. And that was it.
To dare stating that its beneficial effects are unclear or that this a placebo is state of the art smug ignorance.
LLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I regard something truly interesting about your weblog so I bookmarked .

I know this is actually boring and you are skipping to the next comment, but I simply wanted to throw a big thanks! We really came across this on yahoo, and im happy I did. I’ll definitely be coming back…

Reading some of the comments about this blog, Id need to say I agree with the majority. Only a and an very interesting post to read on this nice website. Almost never write some feedback only now i couldnt i possibly could not resist

I thought the guidance excluded chronic back pain? A minor detail, I know…

The BBC article mentions a choice of 3 complementary therapies. If it was down to excercise or acupuncture, I wonder what most people will go for?
Surely the implication that it is a placebo would make the NHS think twice? Unless they are happily promoting bogus treatments these days (ahem)

Re the Beacon. You are right, the guidance doesn’t mention ‘chronic’ back pain (so I’ve amended the above article), but it does talk about ‘persistent back pain’.

I wonder how many of the sceptics have actually tried acupuncture from a reputable practitioner.

Having tried acupuncture as a last resort for back pain, for which the NHS could only advise radical surgery, I found it to be both effective and lasting in its effects.

If that were down to a placebo effect, then I’d imagine that the anti-inflammatories and painkillers previously prescribed by my doctor – and which I fully expected to resolve the problem – would have worked just as well. They didn’t.

As for proven efficacy – if those of us who have tried acupuncture and found it to work are to be written off as deluded beneficiaries of a placebo effect, then trty the copious body of research available on the World Health Organisation website.

It works, and has been proven to work, when administered by well-trained professionals, as licensed by the British Acupuncture Council.

Did you know that 95% of percentages used in 95% of “studies, reports, [email protected] or whatever this Will Heaven has claimed to have conducted, are figures pulled out of the air.
What are you an expert on Mr Heaven? apart from radical spin journalism see following quote (reported by Counterknowledge.com and the BMJ”Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear.” In other words, scientists do not know whether acupuncture works like a placebo, or if it has a real biological effect. I ask why are you spinning acupuncture in this way. Do you perhaps have any connections to the Drug industry which is squirming due to the fact that Drug free remedies are increasing in popularity? If this is your main job then well done. i’d love to sit at a pc all typing rubbish and making it sound official with the usual newspaper dribble, The Catchy headline, All the bullet points kept negative to hit home the message, the odd figure to make it sound official and a sceptical negative anecdotial conclusion. Its a rubbish article but whats more worrying is that people may read it as fact and tell others it as fact. i’ll be keeing my eye out for your articles.

As you all know acupuncture has been around of thousands of years, if there were nothing to it don’t you think it would have gone away by now? You cannot deny the undeniable benefits of natural forms of healthcare.

That acupuncture is effective in blocking out pain is beyond dispute. People have surgery with acupuncture alone. The real issue is not whether acupuncture is effective in blocking pain but whether the relief is persistent.

Acupuncture does work i should know i have ankylosing spondylitis and have ONLY become pain free because of Acupuncture, i now only need a few repeat treatments when the pain comes back and the pain that does come back is minimal compared to the pain i used to get.
I would have loved Acupuncture to be on the NHS instead of paying out a small fortune, Acupuncture does help allot of ailments as well as back pain.
You Mr Heaven have no idea i presume of what it is like to have your whole body in pain, so much so you can`t get out of bed by yourself because your spine muscles have weakened and be in constant pain everyday and then oneday i visited an acupuncturist after my mam got cured of sciatica through Acupuncture and after allot of treatment i am ALLOT better and more often than not either pain free or nearly pain free, all because of Acupuncture.

Paul, I think the last one locked the doors and shut off the lights a couple of months ago.
All thats left here is tumbleweed and and an exchange of invective over the holocaust and zionism.
I assume the site staff have all moved on.

Acupuncture works, and it has done so for hundred of years. It also saved me from spending the rest of my life in a wheelchair. Could have gone for a expensive and ridiculously dangerous operation I guess….

Acupuncture has been known in China for ages, my mom introduced me to acupunture and i am since been amazed how it can reduce my migraine.

What a joke. Acupuncture works, it has for thousands of years. It saved me when I had major back issues, when NHS simply send me home with painkillers usually given to heroin addicts. And that was it.
To dare stating that its beneficial effects are unclear or that this a placebo is state of the art smug ignorance.
LLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I regard something truly interesting about your weblog so I bookmarked .

I know this is actually boring and you are skipping to the next comment, but I simply wanted to throw a big thanks! We really came across this on yahoo, and im happy I did. I’ll definitely be coming back…

Reading some of the comments about this blog, Id need to say I agree with the majority. Only a and an very interesting post to read on this nice website. Almost never write some feedback only now i couldnt i possibly could not resist

Switzerland?!?!

Not the home of 25 Nobel prizes, one of which was won by a young up-and-comer known as Albert Einstein?!?

…or the place with the world’s largest laboratory and world-reknowned medical research facilities?!?

PLEASE, not from the guys who invented the army knife…with a bottle opener, scissors AND a toothpick!?!

Tell me they haven’t been conned by the homeopathetic “magic water” fairies

*sigh*

I’ve often suspected that most people go for CAM because it just seems all nice and holistic and alternative, rather than because they know anything about the specific treatments in question.

Why else would people so easily mix and match CAMs? I mean if you believe in homeopathy, then herbal medicines, traditional Chinese medicines, whatever, are just as bad as pharmaceutical drugs. They’re all “allopathic” and not diluted.

Interesting site, but much advertisments on him. Shall read as subscription, rss.

I have to wonder if people in the survey perhaps mixed up homeopathy with herbal remedies. I’d love to read the actual article but it appears you need to be a registered member or somesuch.

Thanks for discussing my paper. I’m afraid you need a subscription to read the full article, but I can assure you that the responders knew it was homeopathy that we were asking about, here are some of the questions..

There is good scientific evidence that homeopathy works
Agree strongly Agree slightly No firm opinion Disagree slightly Disagree strongly

I know what homeopathy is
Agree strongly Agree slightly No firm opinion Disagree slightly Disagree strongly

How concentrated are homeopathic products?
Very concentrated Moderately concentrated Moderately dilute Very dilute Nothing there

Cheers

Shaun

Thanks for replying Shaun. But may I ask, how can you assure me that respondents knew homeopathy wasn’t the same thing as herbal remedies?

Oh I see…I don’t think that I can prove that, although the name of the survey and questions all referred to homeopathy, I guess that some may have confused them; I don’t think so, but can’t prove this. I’ll send you a pdf if you give me your email address. Cheers

“But may I ask, how can you assure me that respondents knew homeopathy wasn’t the same thing as herbal remedies?”

Well, surely that is the point: if they think homoeopathy is the same thing as herbal remedies, then they don’t know what homoeopathy is.

Quite, Mojo.

of course even the Cochrane Collaboration have been known to confuse the two!

There’s still an important difference between people not realising that homeopathic remedies contain no active ingredient, and people not realising that homeopathy isn’t the same thing as herbalism. For example if people were confusing the two, and you explained that they were different, they may then admit “in that case I’ve never used homeopathy” … in which case the claim that people who *use* homeopathy don’t know what it is, is invalidated.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re very interesting results, but if you do a similar study in the future you may want to check this distinction.

Surely this is further proof that homeopathy works by the placebo effect? It’s ‘natural’, it’s ‘traditional’, its got the royal seal of approval etc.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the “Placebo Effect”. If only everything worked properly because of expectations.

Dr Shaun does not know any thing about this science. He doesnt understand the depth and do not have any knowledge of this wonderful science. If is driving a car blindfolded. Sir please study this science first and then comment.

Switzerland?!?!

Not the home of 25 Nobel prizes, one of which was won by a young up-and-comer known as Albert Einstein?!?

…or the place with the world’s largest laboratory and world-reknowned medical research facilities?!?

PLEASE, not from the guys who invented the army knife…with a bottle opener, scissors AND a toothpick!?!

Tell me they haven’t been conned by the homeopathetic “magic water” fairies

*sigh*

I’ve often suspected that most people go for CAM because it just seems all nice and holistic and alternative, rather than because they know anything about the specific treatments in question.

Why else would people so easily mix and match CAMs? I mean if you believe in homeopathy, then herbal medicines, traditional Chinese medicines, whatever, are just as bad as pharmaceutical drugs. They’re all “allopathic” and not diluted.

Interesting site, but much advertisments on him. Shall read as subscription, rss.

I have to wonder if people in the survey perhaps mixed up homeopathy with herbal remedies. I’d love to read the actual article but it appears you need to be a registered member or somesuch.

Thanks for discussing my paper. I’m afraid you need a subscription to read the full article, but I can assure you that the responders knew it was homeopathy that we were asking about, here are some of the questions..

There is good scientific evidence that homeopathy works
Agree strongly Agree slightly No firm opinion Disagree slightly Disagree strongly

I know what homeopathy is
Agree strongly Agree slightly No firm opinion Disagree slightly Disagree strongly

How concentrated are homeopathic products?
Very concentrated Moderately concentrated Moderately dilute Very dilute Nothing there

Cheers

Shaun

Thanks for replying Shaun. But may I ask, how can you assure me that respondents knew homeopathy wasn’t the same thing as herbal remedies?

Oh I see…I don’t think that I can prove that, although the name of the survey and questions all referred to homeopathy, I guess that some may have confused them; I don’t think so, but can’t prove this. I’ll send you a pdf if you give me your email address. Cheers

“But may I ask, how can you assure me that respondents knew homeopathy wasn’t the same thing as herbal remedies?”

Well, surely that is the point: if they think homoeopathy is the same thing as herbal remedies, then they don’t know what homoeopathy is.

Quite, Mojo.

of course even the Cochrane Collaboration have been known to confuse the two!

There’s still an important difference between people not realising that homeopathic remedies contain no active ingredient, and people not realising that homeopathy isn’t the same thing as herbalism. For example if people were confusing the two, and you explained that they were different, they may then admit “in that case I’ve never used homeopathy” … in which case the claim that people who *use* homeopathy don’t know what it is, is invalidated.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re very interesting results, but if you do a similar study in the future you may want to check this distinction.

Surely this is further proof that homeopathy works by the placebo effect? It’s ‘natural’, it’s ‘traditional’, its got the royal seal of approval etc.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the “Placebo Effect”. If only everything worked properly because of expectations.

Dr Shaun does not know any thing about this science. He doesnt understand the depth and do not have any knowledge of this wonderful science. If is driving a car blindfolded. Sir please study this science first and then comment.

the daliy mail love bad science

This does seem pretty light on the details, but there is plenty of evidence that many cases of addiction involve people self-medicating for genuine problems, and can be helped considerably by providing them with alternative drugs which address their problems more effectively with less damage.

He is corrrect that severe anxiety is crippling. Been there got the t shirt. I started self medicating with alcohol and all the GP’S, shrinks and counsellors all said stop the drinking and the anxiety will vanish. Nobody understood that my anxiety was so severe before I started drinking that that was the reason I started drinking. There is very little meaningful help for alcoholics and again he is right that a lot of addicts have previously suffered anxiety and or depression. Mental health workers need to get their act together instead of condeming this man who is at least trying to find a cure and knows what he’s talking about given that he has suffered first hand.

Is he claiming to be presenting scientific evidence?

has anybody tried this treatment on themself

I agree with Wendy big time. I am going through the throes of anxiety right now and the drinking is making it worse. I hate it and I hate this life. I have ruined too many people including myself. My brother is helping me, he turned me onto the drug, which he just ordered from Canada. I hope it works.

I guess we should be glad that this drug didnt convince him that he can fly jumbo jets. Sober people running about arent nearly as scary.

This is an ill-conceived attack on this man’s experience. He is a legitimate medical researcher who, like others before him, has conducted experimental therapy on himself where it wouldn’t have been practical or indeed ethical to do so on others. His treatment is now cautiously being tested worldwide by others with success. The fact that nobody knows exactly how it works is also nothing new in medicine.

I can say from experience that baclofen WORKS. Period. I suffered with crippling, debilitating alcoholism for 20+ years. Rehab twice. I had lost all hope. I ran across Dr. Ameisen’s info and got my primary care doc on board and we gave baclofen a try. It has literally saved my life. I have become completely indifferent to alcohol/drugs. I do not happen to agree that I can go out and have just 1 drink – I do not think that is wise to ever ingest something that, at one time, nearly destroyed me. I cannot see how he would think that is ok. But, even if I try to entertain the thought of having a drink, I have absolutely no desire. This drug has saved my life & it is nothing short of a miracle

If anyone wants to discuss further – email [email protected]

I have read the Dr Ameisen’s book and have been prescribed Baclofen by my doctor. My alcohol consumption has halved so far and seems to be getting lower by the day. I had already tried Antabuse and Topamax – neither made a difference.
Baclofen does take my anxiety away. I am a happier more relaxed person. I have started exercising and my career has suddenly taken off. All good from my personal experience.

Can one obtain Baclafen in South Africa? Must I see my GP/MD first?

Sounds interesting. If this is documented and proved the scientist can milk millions ou t of it!

Perhaps you could have checked out Pubmed, WebMD for Medical Students or a number of medical information sites before you questioned Dr. Ameisen’s character. If you had you would have found the research that you wanted to see. Also, please note, after an original discovery there usually is a time lag of months to years before replicating studies are published.

Does anyone know of a doctor in Austin, TX or nearby who is willing to prescribe Baclofen? Have read the book and checked other sources and think this could help. Any information is very much appreciated.

Anything that helps with alcoholism is welcome. However anxiety is only one of many reasons why people drink.

24/7 Help Yourself

My doc has started me on Baclofen after I gave him Ameisen’s book to read. We have both been trying to contact Dr. Ameisen through his website and publisher, no luck. Does anyone know what he is currently doing and if he is still successfully clean and sober? Seems like he’s dropped off the planet!

Does anyone know how to find a UK GP who will prescribe Baclofen against alcoholism. Our specialist has refused as it is “beyond his prescribing competence.”

We are slightly at our wits end.

Any pointers to deeper info would be appreciated.

Lancet trial report at:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61789-9/fulltext

See also:
http://www.olivierameisen.com/en

Have read with great enthusiasm everything I can find on the use of Baclofen for the treatment of alcoholism.
Has anyone in Australia any knowledge of it being prescribed here for this purpose. I would dearly like to hear from you if you have. I do believe the Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney had dome some trial.

the daliy mail love bad science

This does seem pretty light on the details, but there is plenty of evidence that many cases of addiction involve people self-medicating for genuine problems, and can be helped considerably by providing them with alternative drugs which address their problems more effectively with less damage.

He is corrrect that severe anxiety is crippling. Been there got the t shirt. I started self medicating with alcohol and all the GP’S, shrinks and counsellors all said stop the drinking and the anxiety will vanish. Nobody understood that my anxiety was so severe before I started drinking that that was the reason I started drinking. There is very little meaningful help for alcoholics and again he is right that a lot of addicts have previously suffered anxiety and or depression. Mental health workers need to get their act together instead of condeming this man who is at least trying to find a cure and knows what he’s talking about given that he has suffered first hand.

Is he claiming to be presenting scientific evidence?

has anybody tried this treatment on themself

I agree with Wendy big time. I am going through the throes of anxiety right now and the drinking is making it worse. I hate it and I hate this life. I have ruined too many people including myself. My brother is helping me, he turned me onto the drug, which he just ordered from Canada. I hope it works.

I guess we should be glad that this drug didnt convince him that he can fly jumbo jets. Sober people running about arent nearly as scary.

This is an ill-conceived attack on this man’s experience. He is a legitimate medical researcher who, like others before him, has conducted experimental therapy on himself where it wouldn’t have been practical or indeed ethical to do so on others. His treatment is now cautiously being tested worldwide by others with success. The fact that nobody knows exactly how it works is also nothing new in medicine.

I can say from experience that baclofen WORKS. Period. I suffered with crippling, debilitating alcoholism for 20+ years. Rehab twice. I had lost all hope. I ran across Dr. Ameisen’s info and got my primary care doc on board and we gave baclofen a try. It has literally saved my life. I have become completely indifferent to alcohol/drugs. I do not happen to agree that I can go out and have just 1 drink – I do not think that is wise to ever ingest something that, at one time, nearly destroyed me. I cannot see how he would think that is ok. But, even if I try to entertain the thought of having a drink, I have absolutely no desire. This drug has saved my life & it is nothing short of a miracle

If anyone wants to discuss further – email [email protected]

I have read the Dr Ameisen’s book and have been prescribed Baclofen by my doctor. My alcohol consumption has halved so far and seems to be getting lower by the day. I had already tried Antabuse and Topamax – neither made a difference.
Baclofen does take my anxiety away. I am a happier more relaxed person. I have started exercising and my career has suddenly taken off. All good from my personal experience.

Can one obtain Baclafen in South Africa? Must I see my GP/MD first?

Sounds interesting. If this is documented and proved the scientist can milk millions ou t of it!

Perhaps you could have checked out Pubmed, WebMD for Medical Students or a number of medical information sites before you questioned Dr. Ameisen’s character. If you had you would have found the research that you wanted to see. Also, please note, after an original discovery there usually is a time lag of months to years before replicating studies are published.

Does anyone know of a doctor in Austin, TX or nearby who is willing to prescribe Baclofen? Have read the book and checked other sources and think this could help. Any information is very much appreciated.

Anything that helps with alcoholism is welcome. However anxiety is only one of many reasons why people drink.

24/7 Help Yourself

My doc has started me on Baclofen after I gave him Ameisen’s book to read. We have both been trying to contact Dr. Ameisen through his website and publisher, no luck. Does anyone know what he is currently doing and if he is still successfully clean and sober? Seems like he’s dropped off the planet!

Does anyone know how to find a UK GP who will prescribe Baclofen against alcoholism. Our specialist has refused as it is “beyond his prescribing competence.”

We are slightly at our wits end.

Any pointers to deeper info would be appreciated.

Lancet trial report at:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61789-9/fulltext

See also:
http://www.olivierameisen.com/en

Have read with great enthusiasm everything I can find on the use of Baclofen for the treatment of alcoholism.
Has anyone in Australia any knowledge of it being prescribed here for this purpose. I would dearly like to hear from you if you have. I do believe the Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney had dome some trial.

A sharp insight

A sharp insight

The New Scientist has some interesting views on HGT. I’m sat here thinking about a supposedly groundbreaking work that has no emipirical data to back up its claims and wondering why it seems so familiar. The Interview with Griffin is an eye opener – he mentions encountering conflict from the academic community, but acceptance from people working “at the coal face”. Again, this sounds familiar. Dianetics anyone? The discussion of “molar memories” being an ancient survival mechanism that affects our rational processes, almost identical to Hubbard’s notion of the engram. And in the blurb for the book discussing Molar Memory it’s described as “an immensely inspiring book, ‘An Idea in Practice’, also demonstrates how the human givens organising idea can bring clarity to ethics and diplomacy.” Ethics and diplomacy?

There is a Joe Griffin listed on the excellent Scientology Stats database – not a smoking gun, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same guy. Someone should call RTC!

GHGI? GNDN more like it.

Interesting – I was working in a bookshop at one point and I remember seeing this book and thinking how odd it was that it was basically a self-help book but full of neurosciencey jargon.

Maybe I need to read it and blog about it…

For Darwins’s sake! How much more of the taxpayers hard earned is the NHS going to waste on such idiocy? Please sign my petition on precisely this matter at “petitions.number10.gov.uk/quackery”. Thankyou.

It’s absurd to link Joe Griffin of MindFields College with Scientology because a “Joe Griffin” is listed on a scientology database. If you knew anything about the Human Givens approach or Joe himself this would be self evident – It is simply not him.

Human Givens may be quackery. I don’t know yet, but this article has no substance to help me decide. Essentially it reads more like egocentric sarcasm assuming a sympathetic audience. I take it the author hasn’t noticed a lot of people make a significant amount of money from traditional forms of medicine? Perhaps that is what he is trying to protect?

It hasn’t given me a reason to come back to counterknowledge.com.

Two years ago I marked the 12th anniversary of my first diagnosis of depression. I had been given just about every possible kind of counselling, psychiatric drug and intervention known to science, including being sectioned. I had not made an inch of progress in all that time. I sought a human givens therapist, rather cautious because I had previously read a web site similar to yours. It’s NOT a cult, and it’s NOT a system of belief – far from it. What it does, very effectively, is to get past all the quackery provided for years by the NHS. I have now celebrated a different anniversary – one year without a moment of depression, and not now taking any medication, and this is due entirely to the human givens approach. My success will not have been counted in any scientific evidence-based study, but I do feel very much better, and that’s thanks to the human givens. When I find anybody caning the human givens lot I always begin to look behind the scenes and ask myself where their emotional needs are not being met. Perhaps the answer will give the clue as to why somebody has a vested interest in trying to bad-mouth something about which they clearly know very little.

This seems to be the reaction to any form of new thinking, I understand why as there are con merchants out there, but I doubt many con merchants would go to the levels that the Human Givens Organisation has, and I bet that when Ration Emotive Behavioral Therapy or CBT was thought up and introduced that it was seen as Quackery by those a little fearful of it, and I know that someone will say that these forms of treatment are backed up by scientific study now; however there is some conjecture about the way that CBT’s studies are researched and reported (not saying that this is correct but it is out there). And in terms of getting qualified for Human Givens you have to study with them and pay them to get their qualification. How stupid a statement is that, to be able to practice CBT you have to go and learn with someone associated with CBT, afraid that doesn’t allude to evidence that it is quackery. And looking at the fee’s for the course, it’s about the same as diploma in photography, hardly Kerching is it?

I think what the Human Givens want to do is take elements of other therapies that have had success and look at them in terms of effectiveness to include and use to treat people, that seems a sensible approach to me. As someone who has had a mental health issue I get a little annoyed when therapies seem exclusive of others, no one approach can work for everybody.

I think you do a disservice to anyone suffering to discredit something just because it seems to be new and might upset more intrenched therapies and in the long run drug companies.

Perhaps what would be more beneficial to patients, clients whatever you want to call us is to open a dialogue, share – I’m sure that the Human Givens would be open to that. I cannot tell you how much disservice you do people out there who are suffering with all this bickering between models of therapy, it’s not very adult and something I would like to see less of.

I’m not suggesting that anything should be beyond scrutiny, just don’t think to yourself your doing anyone a service by cynical attacks to something new.

Ultimately from someone who has had a mental health issue what I hope that anyone who is setting themselves up as a therapist would do is be open to what can work. Take their lead from the patient, see the ‘work’ as a team effort.

What worked for me was various elements of relaxation, hypnotherapy and CBT, and discussions with a therapist – all working together for the common goal of elevating pain, which is what should be the intention of anyone offering help. I bet you if you looked into any of those treatments you would find reports of how they haven’t worked, or claims that they can ‘cure all’.

Getting better is hard enough, but when it’s a mind field of conjecture out there without good reason it just makes it all the more difficult. If the psychiatric profession would stop seeing themselves as experts but rather that the patients are, and that we all fight the good fight – maybe the better off we all would be.

What a dreary, ill informed and generally sour article this individual has written. It is devoid of any factual information or explanation of Human Givens, other than to cause mirth and hilarity- I only hope this doesn’t sum up how the person has worked with patients over a 17 year career?

However, I was D E L I G H T E D to know that this person is now a manager in one of the UK’s largest mental health authorities. Perhaps they might spend a little more time trying to help patients find constructive ways forward, rather than promoting a pill popping culture?

I am going to give Human Givens Therapy a try.

I suffer from agoraphobia and I take zoloft and yet no relief.

I am sick of living in fear and the counter auguments have convinced me that HGT may be worth a try.

Thank you gentlemen. God bless you all

I have been researching and looking at Human Givens for 8 years. I have a few criticisms and a few things I agree with. Some of it makes sense like the Human Givens main basis that we have emotional needs and if they are met we can be free of depression and other health problems. Basically you need good friends, and intimate relationship and a challenging job and something you do you are respected for to have your needs met. Not sure I agree with this but it makes sense and is a good selling point to NHS hospitals and more. If you look around at people who are depressed you ususlly find that they are not getting their emotional needs met. But which comes first?

If you are feeling low you probably will not want to go out and get a partner and you will struggle to cope at work. What the Human Givens can help with is breaking the cycle.

Unlike the use of drugs you can’t in reality test such a subjective based approach to health care as it relies on individual experience. If it works for you then good if not then try something else. You will have to search for something that you think may work for you if you think it HG there is a lot of information available for you to make a informed choice – which is what it’s all about

I have spent 2 years having CBT and for me it was a nightmare, and I could not break the cycle that I found myself in. I therefore, decided to try to find another way. The HG spoke about things that I could understand and relate to, and there was someone there to work through the pain with me. I am now trying to find out more, and to become a councelor for others. However, I really do not think that anyone who has not been in a state of depression themselves should make such unhelpful statements without trying the system first.

I first heard about Molar Memories in a Youtube video of Joe Griffin speaking about paraphilias. He claimed these disorders could quickly and easily be cured if the sufferer was guided back to the precise moment in his past where an imprintation took place, setting these lifelong obsessions into motion.

I have had a severe tattoo paraphilia for more than half of my life. Nearly every minute of everyday for over 20 years I have been thinking of tattoos. I’ve tattooed myself hundreds of times with any implement i could find that would do the job. My life has been completely out of control, so Griffin’s concepts were more than interesting to me. I just wanted to know how i could use his information to treat myself, since i couldn’t find a practitioner in the US for this therapy.

When i was four years old, i discovered masturbation. I have always vividly remembered what it was that excited me to have an orgasm that first time. It was a strange thought, a thought of transforming into a different person. I have no clue why this excited me, but it did. I could always recall this experience, but it wasn’t until last month after revisiting the video, that I understood what ultimately took place.

I began to fully process what Griffin was saying, and realized that ALL of my turn ons (there were others like amputation, becoming blind) fell under an umbrella of all things Transformation. They were clearly aligned with my first sexual experience. And just like that, a massive blow was struck to this devastating obsession. I saw tattoos in an entirely new way. They were less meaningful and seemed even silly. The day after this epiphany, the “tattoo loop” was nearly half its usual strength, the first ever reduction in these thoughts.

Now it wasn’t completely gone, but it Was weaker. So I decided to take further action, and went to a tattoo removal clinic. I have been for removal in the past, so this was nothing new. What WAS new however was how i felt after this particular treatment. I no longer found tattoos attractive!!! They instantly meant nothing to me.

And I’m sitting here a month later, still with no desire to tattoo myself, feeling as if i conquered the world. Just remembering the many times I contemplated ending my life because of doctors and literature telling me there was nothing that could be done. That I’d have this ruinous disorder for life. So the author can call Joe Griffin a quack if he’s gets some satisfaction from it. It really makes no difference to me, because I know the man’s a lifesaving genius.

The Human Givens approach is new and exciting and about as far from being weird or cultish as you could ever get. There is nothing on the agenda for HG therapists but getting people to feel better as quickly as possible because the knowledge is there to enable that to happen.

As a business model, what could be better than saying that people are really sick and need years of therapy, yet they do precisely the opposite of this.The founders are themselves experienced and effective therapists who have found a way of teaching what they do to others, so that more people can recover from anxiety and trauma.

They are genuine and commited to bringing relief to people suffering from stress in many different ways and they aim to bring actual relief from a lot of long term suffering because they know that this is what good therapy should be doing. They do not pathologise people, they just help people to build on their strengths and calm themselves down into a state of optimum mental health.

blah blah blah, The NHS is a waste of time anyway, Hurra to HG, its a breath of fresh air!!! wake up, its time to weed out the dinosaurs and move on!

I have worked in the area of mental health for over thirty years and been a clinical co-ordinator for many of them. I do have some criticism of HG and yet . . . . this is my first visit to the site and, if this sorry and dreary article, clearly played for cheap points from a sympathetic audience, is the standard of critique you offer, it will be my last.

This article is disgusting. The writer clearly has no knowledge of HG therapy, and simply labelling the pioneers of it as money grabbers is a cheap.

Having suffered debilitating depression and anxiety in the past, I know for a fact the HG approach works. Having spent 6 months in deep depression (made no easier by the NHS waiting list for counselling and trying several anti depressents), just 2 months with a HG counseller I completely turned it around.

It appalls me that the ‘old school’ type therapies are not open to new approaches which clearly have a higher success rate than than CBT or sending the poor patient away from the doctors surgery with boxes of pills which side effects are worse than the problem.

Human Givens is absolutely the right way forward.

The author who has worked with the NHS for 17 years is certainly trapped in a tunnel and thinks the world ends there. if he is a living person he should know that there will always be movement and renewing of the mind to better solutiion to human issues. He will do better in his profession if he read about HG . If he does no do this , then I have no choice that so borrow one of the commentator phrace.
Essentially he sounds more like egocentric sarcasm assuming a sympathetic audience. I take it the author hasn’t noticed a lot of people make a significant

Having experienced depression for years and experiencied every type of help available. The HG approach finally answered the question. I have attended some seminars and it makes sense. I would love to undertake the full qualification to help others but unfortunately cannot afford the courses having given up my destructive job to follow my hearts desire to help others. The HG approach offers common sense and a QUICK solution rather than years of navel gazing and £ down the drain.

As a qualified psychologist I find the claims made by the Human Givens people interesting. I live in Australian and have had some exposure to one or two people from the UK touting this stuff but they are very scant on the details of the supposed evidence. The only thing they have been able to give me are a few light on articles published in their own publications that contain no methodological information or data that could be replicated by an independent body. I have also done a check of the psychotherapy outcome literature from recognised peer reviewed journals and found nothing. In spite of this they hand out brochures that make very bold and wild claims that I found very bizarre. What is also interesting is that they attack psychodynamic therapy as being harmful, when in actuality there is now considerable evidence in peer reviewed journals that it does work. I must admit there is more available evidence for CBT but nothing for human givens. As Carl Sagan once said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

I have studied the Human Givens approach, having attended all the workshops and seminars that make up the first part of the MA programme they are running via Nottingham Trent University.
They offer the normal Diploma or, Via NTU, three exit points (Post Grad Certificate, PG Diploma or the full MA).
A psychotherapist for 22 years i have a great deal of sympathy and admiration for the approach and believe it to be a wonderful ‘organizing idea’. I found there is a tendency to discuss the positive and negative elements from other therapies, but this is more to explain where the HG approach sits. The only exception is Psychodynamic therapy. This is not looked on kindly purely because it is a longer term therapy, whereas the HG approach is to help clients in the shortest time/number of sessions possible.
Regarding evidence – Many HG therapists now use CORE-M and HG needs questionnaires as standard and evidence is being compiled all the time. The MA programme also allows scope for further evidential work. Organisations who are using the approach are also using evidential gathering at present. So there is expected to be a LOT of evidence soon.
My own feeling is that HG is not perfect, but certainly IS worth a look and will benefit many organisations as well as individuals.

I agree change is coming and there are some entrenched schools of therapy & pharmaceutical companies objecting from ignorance or self interest.
These are only my personal experiences, implementing HG with real clients and is not suggested as evidenced based yet!
Andrea

Having experienced Human Givens therapy myself, and now as a practicising therapist, it is disappointing to see such destructive and self intererested comments about a form of brief therapy that is not only effective but supported by a mass of scientific evidence. It may not yet take the form of ‘Human Givens Research’, but it is substantial, credible and comes from a number of fields such as neuroscience, CBT and interpersonal therapies.

The point that seems to be missed by the original author, from their limited perspective, is that Human Givens is an organising idea, integrating the most effective therapies and interventions to meet an individual client’s needs. It is the opposite of the destructive labelling, and mass produced therapy that is churned out by the schools that peer review articles from a limited perspective. It is about helping people to retake control of their lives as soon as possible. In other words, it’s a practical solution focused approach that helps people who are in danger of being failed by our depersonalised Natiional Health Service.

The evidence to support the Human Givens Approach is being collected and analysed in the form that is required and will show that brief, solution focused therapy is the way forward very soon.

As a psychology post grad I have yet to come across a more integrated and ethical approach to psychological well being than HG. Perhaps those who criticise this approach should study biological and neurological psychology as well as HG before dismissing it. As a HG therapist my main focus is on teaching individuals to be their own therapist/psychologist. I also measure outcomes so clients can track progress and I get feedback on how the client is progressing. It might be an idea to speak to some individuals who have experienced the HG approach before dismissing it.

Interesting comments. I am an experienced counsellor and psychologist and find a number of the ideas of Human Givens interesting and plausible. But the self-promotional style of the book ‘Human Givens’ and its ‘dissing’ of other therapies made it hard going to continue taking them seriously. My conclusion was that they are trying to bring together a number of effective elements of other therapies particularly NLP and CBT and some interesting devleopments from Evolutionary Psychology. If only they would credit their sources more, it’d be easier to trust them. Also the relative lack of academic credentials of Griffen & Tyrell, and the fact that all the journal articles about HG therapy referenced in ‘Human Givens’ and a couple of their other publications that I have read are from Journals they publish themselves. None of which means the therapy doesn’t work. I do like the fact that they are committed to outcome measurement – that in itself probably helps the effectiveness of therapy. I think the ‘common factors’ research that over and over again finds that all therapies are pretty much equal in terms of effectiveness when various confounding variables are controlled for (the ‘Dodo bird verdict’) and that the effectiveness of a therapy / therapist doesn’t correlate with the things we might expect (level of qualification, length of experience etc) says that HG is probably as effective as any other therapy – and that, as with all therapies, it will work for some and not for others. The better the therapist is able to ‘get’ the client in terms of what makes sense to them, and match their therapy to the client, the more likely it will be effective.

Am intrigued by the very emotive response of the defenders of HG – as a previous commenter said – a calm rational discussion would be interesting.

Angela

What an alarmingly bitter, inaccurate and unhelpful piece of writing your article represents. I am not sure it’s even legal to state that someone must be linked to Scientology or anything else because they happen to be called Joe Griffin, (a name that I would think is not that uncommon). Not that I am criticising Scientology for I have no knowledge about that whatsoever.

1. HG was ‘invented’ in the same way that Freud ‘invented’ psychotherapy. I think ‘conceived of’ would be a better term because we are talking about a body of theory and not a new brand of soap powder.

2. HG has a small evidence-base owing to the fact it is about 10 years old and does not have it’s roots in the early 20th Century. About 7 years ago CBT was thought of as being shallow, ineffective and a bit of a gimmick

3. I do not consider an article entitled “is the UK emotionally happy?” to be necessarily of a new-age persuasion. You also need to think of what New Age means to you. If it is a new era, a new wave then what bothers you about a modern approach that is suited to modern times?

4. “Naturally” yes you do have to pay for a HG Diploma. You also have to study for it and give of yourself emotionally and intellectually. You might like to consider that you also pay for degrees, NVQs and all other professional qualifications (CIPD, CIM…) what an earth are you trying to say? People are not ordering these Diplomas on Amazon? They are paying to study for them

5. Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell were of course at the head of Mindfields College. They conceived of HG and therefore naturally they are the ones running the school that trains people in that approach. I went to Exeter University and did a Politics degree. We were lectured by experts in the subject, told to buy their books and to learn and critique their way of thinking. That is what education is… an industry, a learning process… You may have been in mental health nursing for 17 years but where on earth did you do your degree? I hope that your teachers were also those who were experts in their field

6. Regarding the letters one can use after their name having obtained the HG Diploma… one might get bored of people asking what they stand for. I expect people who trained with Relate when they first started where asked what their Diploma meant, of with Polytechnics that turned into unis people were always have to prove their qualifications’s worth.

Your article is misguided, heavily biased towards an insinuation of illigitimacy and totally unresearched. It is libellous towards Mr Joe Griffin and I am surprised no one has tried to sue you.

You talk about research methodology and yet you make unsubstantiated assertions and don’t outline your own methodology… clearly because there isn’t one. What you have here is a hypothesis that you cannot be bothered to prove right or wrong.

Mr Griffin and Mr Tyrrell have worked in this field for years and are psychologists. They are pioneers in an area that attracts criticism from people who get very wrapped up in what mental ill health represents for them when many of them have never experienced it.

I had OCD, anxiety, depression, claustrophobia, agoraphobia and bipolar for 20 years and I am now 32. I intend to train in HG therapy now because having researched schools of psychotherapy for many years and having uncovered some alarming practices from accredited individuals and institutions I am not afraid to try a method that strikes me as being very practical, relevant and economical to society as a whole.

Griffin and Tyrrell have done a lot to uncover the practices of private therapy schools and how they rip off students and keep them in a subculture of therapeutic education when actually the goal is to train the right people up so that they can help our society asap, and alleviate the massive burden that minor mental illness has on the whole country/ world.

I think the industry should be proud of them, whatever they think of HG therapy.

The New Scientist has some interesting views on HGT. I’m sat here thinking about a supposedly groundbreaking work that has no emipirical data to back up its claims and wondering why it seems so familiar. The Interview with Griffin is an eye opener – he mentions encountering conflict from the academic community, but acceptance from people working “at the coal face”. Again, this sounds familiar. Dianetics anyone? The discussion of “molar memories” being an ancient survival mechanism that affects our rational processes, almost identical to Hubbard’s notion of the engram. And in the blurb for the book discussing Molar Memory it’s described as “an immensely inspiring book, ‘An Idea in Practice’, also demonstrates how the human givens organising idea can bring clarity to ethics and diplomacy.” Ethics and diplomacy?

There is a Joe Griffin listed on the excellent Scientology Stats database – not a smoking gun, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same guy. Someone should call RTC!

GHGI? GNDN more like it.

Interesting – I was working in a bookshop at one point and I remember seeing this book and thinking how odd it was that it was basically a self-help book but full of neurosciencey jargon.

Maybe I need to read it and blog about it…

For Darwins’s sake! How much more of the taxpayers hard earned is the NHS going to waste on such idiocy? Please sign my petition on precisely this matter at “petitions.number10.gov.uk/quackery”. Thankyou.

It’s absurd to link Joe Griffin of MindFields College with Scientology because a “Joe Griffin” is listed on a scientology database. If you knew anything about the Human Givens approach or Joe himself this would be self evident – It is simply not him.

Human Givens may be quackery. I don’t know yet, but this article has no substance to help me decide. Essentially it reads more like egocentric sarcasm assuming a sympathetic audience. I take it the author hasn’t noticed a lot of people make a significant amount of money from traditional forms of medicine? Perhaps that is what he is trying to protect?

It hasn’t given me a reason to come back to counterknowledge.com.

Two years ago I marked the 12th anniversary of my first diagnosis of depression. I had been given just about every possible kind of counselling, psychiatric drug and intervention known to science, including being sectioned. I had not made an inch of progress in all that time. I sought a human givens therapist, rather cautious because I had previously read a web site similar to yours. It’s NOT a cult, and it’s NOT a system of belief – far from it. What it does, very effectively, is to get past all the quackery provided for years by the NHS. I have now celebrated a different anniversary – one year without a moment of depression, and not now taking any medication, and this is due entirely to the human givens approach. My success will not have been counted in any scientific evidence-based study, but I do feel very much better, and that’s thanks to the human givens. When I find anybody caning the human givens lot I always begin to look behind the scenes and ask myself where their emotional needs are not being met. Perhaps the answer will give the clue as to why somebody has a vested interest in trying to bad-mouth something about which they clearly know very little.

This seems to be the reaction to any form of new thinking, I understand why as there are con merchants out there, but I doubt many con merchants would go to the levels that the Human Givens Organisation has, and I bet that when Ration Emotive Behavioral Therapy or CBT was thought up and introduced that it was seen as Quackery by those a little fearful of it, and I know that someone will say that these forms of treatment are backed up by scientific study now; however there is some conjecture about the way that CBT’s studies are researched and reported (not saying that this is correct but it is out there). And in terms of getting qualified for Human Givens you have to study with them and pay them to get their qualification. How stupid a statement is that, to be able to practice CBT you have to go and learn with someone associated with CBT, afraid that doesn’t allude to evidence that it is quackery. And looking at the fee’s for the course, it’s about the same as diploma in photography, hardly Kerching is it?

I think what the Human Givens want to do is take elements of other therapies that have had success and look at them in terms of effectiveness to include and use to treat people, that seems a sensible approach to me. As someone who has had a mental health issue I get a little annoyed when therapies seem exclusive of others, no one approach can work for everybody.

I think you do a disservice to anyone suffering to discredit something just because it seems to be new and might upset more intrenched therapies and in the long run drug companies.

Perhaps what would be more beneficial to patients, clients whatever you want to call us is to open a dialogue, share – I’m sure that the Human Givens would be open to that. I cannot tell you how much disservice you do people out there who are suffering with all this bickering between models of therapy, it’s not very adult and something I would like to see less of.

I’m not suggesting that anything should be beyond scrutiny, just don’t think to yourself your doing anyone a service by cynical attacks to something new.

Ultimately from someone who has had a mental health issue what I hope that anyone who is setting themselves up as a therapist would do is be open to what can work. Take their lead from the patient, see the ‘work’ as a team effort.

What worked for me was various elements of relaxation, hypnotherapy and CBT, and discussions with a therapist – all working together for the common goal of elevating pain, which is what should be the intention of anyone offering help. I bet you if you looked into any of those treatments you would find reports of how they haven’t worked, or claims that they can ‘cure all’.

Getting better is hard enough, but when it’s a mind field of conjecture out there without good reason it just makes it all the more difficult. If the psychiatric profession would stop seeing themselves as experts but rather that the patients are, and that we all fight the good fight – maybe the better off we all would be.

What a dreary, ill informed and generally sour article this individual has written. It is devoid of any factual information or explanation of Human Givens, other than to cause mirth and hilarity- I only hope this doesn’t sum up how the person has worked with patients over a 17 year career?

However, I was D E L I G H T E D to know that this person is now a manager in one of the UK’s largest mental health authorities. Perhaps they might spend a little more time trying to help patients find constructive ways forward, rather than promoting a pill popping culture?

I am going to give Human Givens Therapy a try.

I suffer from agoraphobia and I take zoloft and yet no relief.

I am sick of living in fear and the counter auguments have convinced me that HGT may be worth a try.

Thank you gentlemen. God bless you all

I have been researching and looking at Human Givens for 8 years. I have a few criticisms and a few things I agree with. Some of it makes sense like the Human Givens main basis that we have emotional needs and if they are met we can be free of depression and other health problems. Basically you need good friends, and intimate relationship and a challenging job and something you do you are respected for to have your needs met. Not sure I agree with this but it makes sense and is a good selling point to NHS hospitals and more. If you look around at people who are depressed you ususlly find that they are not getting their emotional needs met. But which comes first?

If you are feeling low you probably will not want to go out and get a partner and you will struggle to cope at work. What the Human Givens can help with is breaking the cycle.

Unlike the use of drugs you can’t in reality test such a subjective based approach to health care as it relies on individual experience. If it works for you then good if not then try something else. You will have to search for something that you think may work for you if you think it HG there is a lot of information available for you to make a informed choice – which is what it’s all about

I have spent 2 years having CBT and for me it was a nightmare, and I could not break the cycle that I found myself in. I therefore, decided to try to find another way. The HG spoke about things that I could understand and relate to, and there was someone there to work through the pain with me. I am now trying to find out more, and to become a councelor for others. However, I really do not think that anyone who has not been in a state of depression themselves should make such unhelpful statements without trying the system first.

I first heard about Molar Memories in a Youtube video of Joe Griffin speaking about paraphilias. He claimed these disorders could quickly and easily be cured if the sufferer was guided back to the precise moment in his past where an imprintation took place, setting these lifelong obsessions into motion.

I have had a severe tattoo paraphilia for more than half of my life. Nearly every minute of everyday for over 20 years I have been thinking of tattoos. I’ve tattooed myself hundreds of times with any implement i could find that would do the job. My life has been completely out of control, so Griffin’s concepts were more than interesting to me. I just wanted to know how i could use his information to treat myself, since i couldn’t find a practitioner in the US for this therapy.

When i was four years old, i discovered masturbation. I have always vividly remembered what it was that excited me to have an orgasm that first time. It was a strange thought, a thought of transforming into a different person. I have no clue why this excited me, but it did. I could always recall this experience, but it wasn’t until last month after revisiting the video, that I understood what ultimately took place.

I began to fully process what Griffin was saying, and realized that ALL of my turn ons (there were others like amputation, becoming blind) fell under an umbrella of all things Transformation. They were clearly aligned with my first sexual experience. And just like that, a massive blow was struck to this devastating obsession. I saw tattoos in an entirely new way. They were less meaningful and seemed even silly. The day after this epiphany, the “tattoo loop” was nearly half its usual strength, the first ever reduction in these thoughts.

Now it wasn’t completely gone, but it Was weaker. So I decided to take further action, and went to a tattoo removal clinic. I have been for removal in the past, so this was nothing new. What WAS new however was how i felt after this particular treatment. I no longer found tattoos attractive!!! They instantly meant nothing to me.

And I’m sitting here a month later, still with no desire to tattoo myself, feeling as if i conquered the world. Just remembering the many times I contemplated ending my life because of doctors and literature telling me there was nothing that could be done. That I’d have this ruinous disorder for life. So the author can call Joe Griffin a quack if he’s gets some satisfaction from it. It really makes no difference to me, because I know the man’s a lifesaving genius.

The Human Givens approach is new and exciting and about as far from being weird or cultish as you could ever get. There is nothing on the agenda for HG therapists but getting people to feel better as quickly as possible because the knowledge is there to enable that to happen.

As a business model, what could be better than saying that people are really sick and need years of therapy, yet they do precisely the opposite of this.The founders are themselves experienced and effective therapists who have found a way of teaching what they do to others, so that more people can recover from anxiety and trauma.

They are genuine and commited to bringing relief to people suffering from stress in many different ways and they aim to bring actual relief from a lot of long term suffering because they know that this is what good therapy should be doing. They do not pathologise people, they just help people to build on their strengths and calm themselves down into a state of optimum mental health.

blah blah blah, The NHS is a waste of time anyway, Hurra to HG, its a breath of fresh air!!! wake up, its time to weed out the dinosaurs and move on!

I have worked in the area of mental health for over thirty years and been a clinical co-ordinator for many of them. I do have some criticism of HG and yet . . . . this is my first visit to the site and, if this sorry and dreary article, clearly played for cheap points from a sympathetic audience, is the standard of critique you offer, it will be my last.

This article is disgusting. The writer clearly has no knowledge of HG therapy, and simply labelling the pioneers of it as money grabbers is a cheap.

Having suffered debilitating depression and anxiety in the past, I know for a fact the HG approach works. Having spent 6 months in deep depression (made no easier by the NHS waiting list for counselling and trying several anti depressents), just 2 months with a HG counseller I completely turned it around.

It appalls me that the ‘old school’ type therapies are not open to new approaches which clearly have a higher success rate than than CBT or sending the poor patient away from the doctors surgery with boxes of pills which side effects are worse than the problem.

Human Givens is absolutely the right way forward.

The author who has worked with the NHS for 17 years is certainly trapped in a tunnel and thinks the world ends there. if he is a living person he should know that there will always be movement and renewing of the mind to better solutiion to human issues. He will do better in his profession if he read about HG . If he does no do this , then I have no choice that so borrow one of the commentator phrace.
Essentially he sounds more like egocentric sarcasm assuming a sympathetic audience. I take it the author hasn’t noticed a lot of people make a significant

Having experienced depression for years and experiencied every type of help available. The HG approach finally answered the question. I have attended some seminars and it makes sense. I would love to undertake the full qualification to help others but unfortunately cannot afford the courses having given up my destructive job to follow my hearts desire to help others. The HG approach offers common sense and a QUICK solution rather than years of navel gazing and £ down the drain.

As a qualified psychologist I find the claims made by the Human Givens people interesting. I live in Australian and have had some exposure to one or two people from the UK touting this stuff but they are very scant on the details of the supposed evidence. The only thing they have been able to give me are a few light on articles published in their own publications that contain no methodological information or data that could be replicated by an independent body. I have also done a check of the psychotherapy outcome literature from recognised peer reviewed journals and found nothing. In spite of this they hand out brochures that make very bold and wild claims that I found very bizarre. What is also interesting is that they attack psychodynamic therapy as being harmful, when in actuality there is now considerable evidence in peer reviewed journals that it does work. I must admit there is more available evidence for CBT but nothing for human givens. As Carl Sagan once said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

I have studied the Human Givens approach, having attended all the workshops and seminars that make up the first part of the MA programme they are running via Nottingham Trent University.
They offer the normal Diploma or, Via NTU, three exit points (Post Grad Certificate, PG Diploma or the full MA).
A psychotherapist for 22 years i have a great deal of sympathy and admiration for the approach and believe it to be a wonderful ‘organizing idea’. I found there is a tendency to discuss the positive and negative elements from other therapies, but this is more to explain where the HG approach sits. The only exception is Psychodynamic therapy. This is not looked on kindly purely because it is a longer term therapy, whereas the HG approach is to help clients in the shortest time/number of sessions possible.
Regarding evidence – Many HG therapists now use CORE-M and HG needs questionnaires as standard and evidence is being compiled all the time. The MA programme also allows scope for further evidential work. Organisations who are using the approach are also using evidential gathering at present. So there is expected to be a LOT of evidence soon.
My own feeling is that HG is not perfect, but certainly IS worth a look and will benefit many organisations as well as individuals.

I agree change is coming and there are some entrenched schools of therapy & pharmaceutical companies objecting from ignorance or self interest.
These are only my personal experiences, implementing HG with real clients and is not suggested as evidenced based yet!
Andrea

Having experienced Human Givens therapy myself, and now as a practicising therapist, it is disappointing to see such destructive and self intererested comments about a form of brief therapy that is not only effective but supported by a mass of scientific evidence. It may not yet take the form of ‘Human Givens Research’, but it is substantial, credible and comes from a number of fields such as neuroscience, CBT and interpersonal therapies.

The point that seems to be missed by the original author, from their limited perspective, is that Human Givens is an organising idea, integrating the most effective therapies and interventions to meet an individual client’s needs. It is the opposite of the destructive labelling, and mass produced therapy that is churned out by the schools that peer review articles from a limited perspective. It is about helping people to retake control of their lives as soon as possible. In other words, it’s a practical solution focused approach that helps people who are in danger of being failed by our depersonalised Natiional Health Service.

The evidence to support the Human Givens Approach is being collected and analysed in the form that is required and will show that brief, solution focused therapy is the way forward very soon.

As a psychology post grad I have yet to come across a more integrated and ethical approach to psychological well being than HG. Perhaps those who criticise this approach should study biological and neurological psychology as well as HG before dismissing it. As a HG therapist my main focus is on teaching individuals to be their own therapist/psychologist. I also measure outcomes so clients can track progress and I get feedback on how the client is progressing. It might be an idea to speak to some individuals who have experienced the HG approach before dismissing it.

Interesting comments. I am an experienced counsellor and psychologist and find a number of the ideas of Human Givens interesting and plausible. But the self-promotional style of the book ‘Human Givens’ and its ‘dissing’ of other therapies made it hard going to continue taking them seriously. My conclusion was that they are trying to bring together a number of effective elements of other therapies particularly NLP and CBT and some interesting devleopments from Evolutionary Psychology. If only they would credit their sources more, it’d be easier to trust them. Also the relative lack of academic credentials of Griffen & Tyrell, and the fact that all the journal articles about HG therapy referenced in ‘Human Givens’ and a couple of their other publications that I have read are from Journals they publish themselves. None of which means the therapy doesn’t work. I do like the fact that they are committed to outcome measurement – that in itself probably helps the effectiveness of therapy. I think the ‘common factors’ research that over and over again finds that all therapies are pretty much equal in terms of effectiveness when various confounding variables are controlled for (the ‘Dodo bird verdict’) and that the effectiveness of a therapy / therapist doesn’t correlate with the things we might expect (level of qualification, length of experience etc) says that HG is probably as effective as any other therapy – and that, as with all therapies, it will work for some and not for others. The better the therapist is able to ‘get’ the client in terms of what makes sense to them, and match their therapy to the client, the more likely it will be effective.

Am intrigued by the very emotive response of the defenders of HG – as a previous commenter said – a calm rational discussion would be interesting.

Angela

What an alarmingly bitter, inaccurate and unhelpful piece of writing your article represents. I am not sure it’s even legal to state that someone must be linked to Scientology or anything else because they happen to be called Joe Griffin, (a name that I would think is not that uncommon). Not that I am criticising Scientology for I have no knowledge about that whatsoever.

1. HG was ‘invented’ in the same way that Freud ‘invented’ psychotherapy. I think ‘conceived of’ would be a better term because we are talking about a body of theory and not a new brand of soap powder.

2. HG has a small evidence-base owing to the fact it is about 10 years old and does not have it’s roots in the early 20th Century. About 7 years ago CBT was thought of as being shallow, ineffective and a bit of a gimmick

3. I do not consider an article entitled “is the UK emotionally happy?” to be necessarily of a new-age persuasion. You also need to think of what New Age means to you. If it is a new era, a new wave then what bothers you about a modern approach that is suited to modern times?

4. “Naturally” yes you do have to pay for a HG Diploma. You also have to study for it and give of yourself emotionally and intellectually. You might like to consider that you also pay for degrees, NVQs and all other professional qualifications (CIPD, CIM…) what an earth are you trying to say? People are not ordering these Diplomas on Amazon? They are paying to study for them

5. Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell were of course at the head of Mindfields College. They conceived of HG and therefore naturally they are the ones running the school that trains people in that approach. I went to Exeter University and did a Politics degree. We were lectured by experts in the subject, told to buy their books and to learn and critique their way of thinking. That is what education is… an industry, a learning process… You may have been in mental health nursing for 17 years but where on earth did you do your degree? I hope that your teachers were also those who were experts in their field

6. Regarding the letters one can use after their name having obtained the HG Diploma… one might get bored of people asking what they stand for. I expect people who trained with Relate when they first started where asked what their Diploma meant, of with Polytechnics that turned into unis people were always have to prove their qualifications’s worth.

Your article is misguided, heavily biased towards an insinuation of illigitimacy and totally unresearched. It is libellous towards Mr Joe Griffin and I am surprised no one has tried to sue you.

You talk about research methodology and yet you make unsubstantiated assertions and don’t outline your own methodology… clearly because there isn’t one. What you have here is a hypothesis that you cannot be bothered to prove right or wrong.

Mr Griffin and Mr Tyrrell have worked in this field for years and are psychologists. They are pioneers in an area that attracts criticism from people who get very wrapped up in what mental ill health represents for them when many of them have never experienced it.

I had OCD, anxiety, depression, claustrophobia, agoraphobia and bipolar for 20 years and I am now 32. I intend to train in HG therapy now because having researched schools of psychotherapy for many years and having uncovered some alarming practices from accredited individuals and institutions I am not afraid to try a method that strikes me as being very practical, relevant and economical to society as a whole.

Griffin and Tyrrell have done a lot to uncover the practices of private therapy schools and how they rip off students and keep them in a subculture of therapeutic education when actually the goal is to train the right people up so that they can help our society asap, and alleviate the massive burden that minor mental illness has on the whole country/ world.

I think the industry should be proud of them, whatever they think of HG therapy.

The article mentions a study from last year which disproves meridians and chi. Which study was that?

Will, the conclusion is pretty damning to say the least, for the effectiveness of acupuncture. Adrian White and Mike Cummings make it sound like a more open issue because it is their profession! They are both members of the British Medical Acupuncture Society! Apparently “a registered charity established to encourage the use and scientific understanding of acupuncture within medicine for the public benefit. AW is part time journal editor and MC is medical director.”

Seems to me acupuncture came out pretty well in the grand scheme of things. Unlike other “alternative” medicines, it is shown to have an effect on pain – and now we better understand how that effect works. No magical qi needed.

Okay, so the placebo effect is useful for explaining acupuncture, which sounds fine by me since I’ve always been skeptical. But what about racehorses? Is that the same explanation?

Acupuncture does work. it helps me deal with my allergies and also i use acupunture for relaxation /

Acupuncture has been known in China for ages, my mom introduced me to acupunture and i am since been amazed how it can reduce my migraine.

oh again, wow, so you concluded that it mildley reduced pain, Accupuncture is not traditionall used for the treatment of pain. What about a study in the treatment of other disorders, or how accupuncture is actually used in surgury alone without pain relief and it all works well there. Or how mid wifes are taught accupuncture points to help with labour. Yes thats right acupuncture used by western medical practitioners.

Could it possiably be that this study was paid for and conducted by those in the employment of drug companies? The journal this piece was published in certainly is. I too am very interested in the study that “proved” qi does not exist.

I have been taken to task on my assertion that BMJ is largely funded by drug companies. I admit that this assertion is based on hear say and not an accurate accounting of BMJ revenue. I will however contact them and see what can be had.

Acupuncture is a great stress reliever on me. it is also great for headaches “

I rarely see people talk about online support groups to stop smoking. Places such as stop smoking forums could aid you to stop without other methods. Get an urge, simply make a thread and receive support. It really helps! Just try it, you’ll be quite surprised the amount of people will attempt to aid you.

i love acupuncture because it is a great stress reliever and it does not have bad side effects too –

This study are just one of the many sponsored by the Big Pharma Industry which will tend to disprove any type of alternative medicine in which they are not the participants. Not to mention that although there may be quacks there are also alternative medical practices which are based in fact and empirical studies. Example traditional indigenous medicine where many of its exotic components are reinvented in the high priced medical practice. This reminds me once the cause for peptic ulcers was found to be a microorganism, but the pharma bussiness kept peddling its anti-acid medicine treatment.- and still does today.

The article mentions a study from last year which disproves meridians and chi. Which study was that?

Will, the conclusion is pretty damning to say the least, for the effectiveness of acupuncture. Adrian White and Mike Cummings make it sound like a more open issue because it is their profession! They are both members of the British Medical Acupuncture Society! Apparently “a registered charity established to encourage the use and scientific understanding of acupuncture within medicine for the public benefit. AW is part time journal editor and MC is medical director.”

Seems to me acupuncture came out pretty well in the grand scheme of things. Unlike other “alternative” medicines, it is shown to have an effect on pain – and now we better understand how that effect works. No magical qi needed.

Okay, so the placebo effect is useful for explaining acupuncture, which sounds fine by me since I’ve always been skeptical. But what about racehorses? Is that the same explanation?

Acupuncture does work. it helps me deal with my allergies and also i use acupunture for relaxation /

Acupuncture has been known in China for ages, my mom introduced me to acupunture and i am since been amazed how it can reduce my migraine.

oh again, wow, so you concluded that it mildley reduced pain, Accupuncture is not traditionall used for the treatment of pain. What about a study in the treatment of other disorders, or how accupuncture is actually used in surgury alone without pain relief and it all works well there. Or how mid wifes are taught accupuncture points to help with labour. Yes thats right acupuncture used by western medical practitioners.

Could it possiably be that this study was paid for and conducted by those in the employment of drug companies? The journal this piece was published in certainly is. I too am very interested in the study that “proved” qi does not exist.

I have been taken to task on my assertion that BMJ is largely funded by drug companies. I admit that this assertion is based on hear say and not an accurate accounting of BMJ revenue. I will however contact them and see what can be had.

Acupuncture is a great stress reliever on me. it is also great for headaches “

I rarely see people talk about online support groups to stop smoking. Places such as stop smoking forums could aid you to stop without other methods. Get an urge, simply make a thread and receive support. It really helps! Just try it, you’ll be quite surprised the amount of people will attempt to aid you.

i love acupuncture because it is a great stress reliever and it does not have bad side effects too –

This study are just one of the many sponsored by the Big Pharma Industry which will tend to disprove any type of alternative medicine in which they are not the participants. Not to mention that although there may be quacks there are also alternative medical practices which are based in fact and empirical studies. Example traditional indigenous medicine where many of its exotic components are reinvented in the high priced medical practice. This reminds me once the cause for peptic ulcers was found to be a microorganism, but the pharma bussiness kept peddling its anti-acid medicine treatment.- and still does today.

What’s the point of regulating something that doesn’t work?! I saw the announcement of this new organisation being discussed on BBC Breakfast – not once did they mention that the treatments that will be ‘regulated’ are placebos at best.

The work ‘kitemark’ is a Registered Trademark of the British Standards Institute and I doubt they have given CNHC (aka OfQuack, http://www.ofquack.org.uk) permission to use that word.

I’ve emailed BSI and I’ll try to remember to post their response here.

I suspect OfQuack will have to change their website and all their literature when BSI tell them they can’t use the word ‘kitemark’!

A result! I got a response from the BSI. I’ve not checked OfQuack’s website yet, but at least they’ve had their wrists slapped. However, the thought of BSI issuing a British Standard for homoeopathy, just doesn’t bear thinking about!

“Thank you for your enquiry and your concern for Kitemark. Please be assured that we take the protection of our trademark extremely seriously and all potential mis-usage is reported to our Group Legal department where we have a team specialised in Intellectual Property and its protection.

The legal team have been in contact with CNHC about their use of Kitemark and the Co-Chair of this organisation has assured us that they did not intend to mis-use Kitemark, have issued sincere apologies and have committed to put this in writing along with a commitment not to use the word again.

If you re-visit the links you should see that they have removed reference to Kitemark. Naturally should CNHC be interested in commissioning a standard and a Kitemark scheme then BSI would be only to happy to discuss this with them.

Thank once again for your query and I hope that this clarifies the situation and our action.”

Worried that practitioners can get government certification from CNHC without showing that their treatments are effective, or even safe? Me too, so here’s a link to the Number 10 petition requiring evidence of efficacy and safety be made a requirement for CNHC approval.

Anti-Homeopathists have quite a terrible “problem” on their hands. They keep providing statistics, ignoring favorable Homeopathic research, and persist in innuendo and hysteria gainst it. GP’s, and other mediclal professionals keep learning its intricacies and people keep using it and getting better – getting better and getting cured WITHOUT the side effect laden pills, nostrums and hookery typical of pharmaceutical industry products. Oh it’s JUST placebo effect, it is proclaimed, and it is all quackery and nonsense. But people STILL keep using it and improving and getting out of their sickbeds, and start walking about healthy and happy after having gotten sicker with conventional remedies. What can the poor anti-Alternative medicine inuendo-ists do but keep repeating the same misrepresnetations and keep repeating pharmaceutical industry sponsored nonsense – attacking Prince Charles, printing anti-Homeopathy letters with offiical looking NHS logo seals, pretending that pro Homepathy research, does not exist and other anti-scientific hysteria fully indicative that both the politics and the medicine of suppression has reached the end of its road and has chosen to expire with a last gasp of unreasoning hysteria and hatred that anyone should dare disposses them of their sacred and self appointed position as owners of the one and only “standard” medicine. People are so fickle – how dare they abandon standards just because some inexpensive pill dares cure them, and promptly of some malady. How dare they!!!

Totally agree with you, Sceptics Bane…

I had Ulcerative Colitis, took loads of modern drugs, no effect; tried homeopathy, relieved 80%. In many poor countries like mine (Bangladesh), people get cheap but effective treatment by homeopathic, herbal and other alternative medicines, much to the distress of big pharmaceuticals. These alternative medicines have little side effects.

What’s the point of regulating something that doesn’t work?! I saw the announcement of this new organisation being discussed on BBC Breakfast – not once did they mention that the treatments that will be ‘regulated’ are placebos at best.

The work ‘kitemark’ is a Registered Trademark of the British Standards Institute and I doubt they have given CNHC (aka OfQuack, http://www.ofquack.org.uk) permission to use that word.

I’ve emailed BSI and I’ll try to remember to post their response here.

I suspect OfQuack will have to change their website and all their literature when BSI tell them they can’t use the word ‘kitemark’!

A result! I got a response from the BSI. I’ve not checked OfQuack’s website yet, but at least they’ve had their wrists slapped. However, the thought of BSI issuing a British Standard for homoeopathy, just doesn’t bear thinking about!

“Thank you for your enquiry and your concern for Kitemark. Please be assured that we take the protection of our trademark extremely seriously and all potential mis-usage is reported to our Group Legal department where we have a team specialised in Intellectual Property and its protection.

The legal team have been in contact with CNHC about their use of Kitemark and the Co-Chair of this organisation has assured us that they did not intend to mis-use Kitemark, have issued sincere apologies and have committed to put this in writing along with a commitment not to use the word again.

If you re-visit the links you should see that they have removed reference to Kitemark. Naturally should CNHC be interested in commissioning a standard and a Kitemark scheme then BSI would be only to happy to discuss this with them.

Thank once again for your query and I hope that this clarifies the situation and our action.”

Worried that practitioners can get government certification from CNHC without showing that their treatments are effective, or even safe? Me too, so here’s a link to the Number 10 petition requiring evidence of efficacy and safety be made a requirement for CNHC approval.

Anti-Homeopathists have quite a terrible “problem” on their hands. They keep providing statistics, ignoring favorable Homeopathic research, and persist in innuendo and hysteria gainst it. GP’s, and other mediclal professionals keep learning its intricacies and people keep using it and getting better – getting better and getting cured WITHOUT the side effect laden pills, nostrums and hookery typical of pharmaceutical industry products. Oh it’s JUST placebo effect, it is proclaimed, and it is all quackery and nonsense. But people STILL keep using it and improving and getting out of their sickbeds, and start walking about healthy and happy after having gotten sicker with conventional remedies. What can the poor anti-Alternative medicine inuendo-ists do but keep repeating the same misrepresnetations and keep repeating pharmaceutical industry sponsored nonsense – attacking Prince Charles, printing anti-Homeopathy letters with offiical looking NHS logo seals, pretending that pro Homepathy research, does not exist and other anti-scientific hysteria fully indicative that both the politics and the medicine of suppression has reached the end of its road and has chosen to expire with a last gasp of unreasoning hysteria and hatred that anyone should dare disposses them of their sacred and self appointed position as owners of the one and only “standard” medicine. People are so fickle – how dare they abandon standards just because some inexpensive pill dares cure them, and promptly of some malady. How dare they!!!

Totally agree with you, Sceptics Bane…

I had Ulcerative Colitis, took loads of modern drugs, no effect; tried homeopathy, relieved 80%. In many poor countries like mine (Bangladesh), people get cheap but effective treatment by homeopathic, herbal and other alternative medicines, much to the distress of big pharmaceuticals. These alternative medicines have little side effects.

Zenit.org backed away from the article by Edward Pentin today:

Message To Readers
————————————–

CellAdam Cancer Drug

ROME, JAN. 26, 2009 (Zenit.org).- ZENIT would like to inform readers interested in CellAdam, the anti-cancer treatment discussed in last week’s Rome Notes column by Edward Pentin titled the “Believe-It-or-Not Cancer Drug,” that while the product may be as effective as the article suggests, ZENIT cannot and does not officially endorse the treatment.

The views expressed were those of the writer, who was impressed by the faith and sincerity of the company’s Catholic directors and their belief in the treatment’s effectiveness. We recommend that readers interested in the drug do their own research, or wait for the results of the clinical trials that will be completed in the next few years.

I can’t help but notice that out of Ferguson’s four pieces of “evidence”, only one of them is even an actual assertion of any kind. The other three are merely rhetorical questions. In fact, let’s take them one by one:

“1) a visit to the clinic, and discussion with patients”

Of course we could ask the patients whether they think CellAdam has helped them, but the history of quack medicine is full of patients who swore by “treatments” that did nothing for their health (placebos), or even damaged their health further. The plural of anecdote is not data.

“2) what proof of the 25 year timeline do we have?”

I don’t know — what proof DO we have? Of course, if you were in the least bit qualified in science, you would realize that the burden of proof is upon you to show that this alleged 25-year track record exists, not on anyone else to prove that it doesn’t.

“3) why would this company say there is a clinic if in fact it did not exist?”

Why would Madoff have said that his investors’ profits came from clever trading of securities options if where they actually came from was an illegal Ponzi scheme instead? Ummm… duh? Dude, are you seriously expecting us to take “the company says blah-blah-blah” as evidence for blah-blah-blah?

“4) why would this company want to undergo the very clinical trials that would disprove the validity of this product, if in fact it was false?”

Two basic possibilities:
A) The company has convinced itself of the validity of the product, even though it has none, and therefore it wants to undergo the clinical trials that they believe will “confirm” the product’s usefulness. It wouldn’t be the first time.
B) The company knows that the product has no validity, but their plan is simply to keep the show going long enough to collect lots of money from gullible investors and desperate patients, and then disappear with it. The best way to keep the show going and get lots of money coming in is to act like you’ve got the utmost confidence in your product and everyone else should too.

“It would seem to me if you are going to want to dupe people, there would not be any evidence ‘at all’ to back up your claims.”

Oh, wouldn’t the world be easy if things were that simple! I mean, in a world like that, if a restaurant brought you food, the very fact that the food was there would be powerful, if not incontrovertible evidence that it was the finest quality food! Because if the restaurant was going to cheat you by promising you good-quality food and not delivering good-quality food, why would they deliver food at all?? (Well, besides the obvious that if you don’t get food at all, you’ll know you’re being shafted and you won’t pay, so even cheats will put something on your plate.)

“And, you certainly wouldn’t lay it out there with claims such as the exisitence of the clinic, the 25 year time frame, etc.”

Sure you would. That’s the first thing you’d do. Why? Because of gullible souls like Ferguson, who jump to the conclusion that if the claims are made then obviously the claims would hold up under investigation. As long as there are rubes who think “These things are easy to investigate; therefore no one actually needs to investigate” then con men can get away with the very boldest lies.

As for the patent description being some sort of proof — pfft. Yeah, right. I can show you where patents have been granted for perpetual motion machines, compression algorithms that compress all inputs, and other impossible “inventions”. The idea that CellAdam must actually cure cancer simply because a patent examiner noted “the use of the above compounds in the therapy of tumorous diseases and for regenerating tumorous cells and tissues is also claimed” is utter baloney.

Help me bust ‘em! Join me at >>>>>>>
twitter.com/ponzibuster

I’ve recently learned that the company spent millions of dollars over the past 20+ years to support their claim with serious scientific studies.
How many companies that are selling ‘food supplements’ take the effort to support their claims with scientific studies?

Please check out the following link:
http://www.celladam.com/study.html

While I have little reason to believe that CellAdam is a miracle cure, I have little doubt that many comments to this article are made by pseudointellectual establishment snobs who want us to believe that pharmaceutical medicine is the only source of valid information.

In curing cancer , medicine has probably less success than faith – and I have little faith in faith-healers also. In respect to placebos, they have about the same rate of success as chemotherapy in all but about eight different types of cancer.

In respect to any company investing millions of dollars and many years in investigating, no upstart company can afford the amount of money required to compete with the pharmaceutical giants and their in-roads into the FDA aristocracy. If an upstart company comes close to proving a “cure”, the FDA will promply change the ground rules to extend the trials while the pharmaceutical companies continue to pile up profits on ineffective chemo agents. If you doubt this, check what has happened to Burzynski in his efforts to have his system approved. And his system has a long-term success record at treating some cancers that exceed that of competing cancer drugs.

While I have no reason to believe CellAdam will produce any miracle cures, let us not forget that the flawed science of chemotheraphy has also failed us.

Zenit.org backed away from the article by Edward Pentin today:

Message To Readers
————————————–

CellAdam Cancer Drug

ROME, JAN. 26, 2009 (Zenit.org).- ZENIT would like to inform readers interested in CellAdam, the anti-cancer treatment discussed in last week’s Rome Notes column by Edward Pentin titled the “Believe-It-or-Not Cancer Drug,” that while the product may be as effective as the article suggests, ZENIT cannot and does not officially endorse the treatment.

The views expressed were those of the writer, who was impressed by the faith and sincerity of the company’s Catholic directors and their belief in the treatment’s effectiveness. We recommend that readers interested in the drug do their own research, or wait for the results of the clinical trials that will be completed in the next few years.

I can’t help but notice that out of Ferguson’s four pieces of “evidence”, only one of them is even an actual assertion of any kind. The other three are merely rhetorical questions. In fact, let’s take them one by one:

“1) a visit to the clinic, and discussion with patients”

Of course we could ask the patients whether they think CellAdam has helped them, but the history of quack medicine is full of patients who swore by “treatments” that did nothing for their health (placebos), or even damaged their health further. The plural of anecdote is not data.

“2) what proof of the 25 year timeline do we have?”

I don’t know — what proof DO we have? Of course, if you were in the least bit qualified in science, you would realize that the burden of proof is upon you to show that this alleged 25-year track record exists, not on anyone else to prove that it doesn’t.

“3) why would this company say there is a clinic if in fact it did not exist?”

Why would Madoff have said that his investors’ profits came from clever trading of securities options if where they actually came from was an illegal Ponzi scheme instead? Ummm… duh? Dude, are you seriously expecting us to take “the company says blah-blah-blah” as evidence for blah-blah-blah?

“4) why would this company want to undergo the very clinical trials that would disprove the validity of this product, if in fact it was false?”

Two basic possibilities:
A) The company has convinced itself of the validity of the product, even though it has none, and therefore it wants to undergo the clinical trials that they believe will “confirm” the product’s usefulness. It wouldn’t be the first time.
B) The company knows that the product has no validity, but their plan is simply to keep the show going long enough to collect lots of money from gullible investors and desperate patients, and then disappear with it. The best way to keep the show going and get lots of money coming in is to act like you’ve got the utmost confidence in your product and everyone else should too.

“It would seem to me if you are going to want to dupe people, there would not be any evidence ‘at all’ to back up your claims.”

Oh, wouldn’t the world be easy if things were that simple! I mean, in a world like that, if a restaurant brought you food, the very fact that the food was there would be powerful, if not incontrovertible evidence that it was the finest quality food! Because if the restaurant was going to cheat you by promising you good-quality food and not delivering good-quality food, why would they deliver food at all?? (Well, besides the obvious that if you don’t get food at all, you’ll know you’re being shafted and you won’t pay, so even cheats will put something on your plate.)

“And, you certainly wouldn’t lay it out there with claims such as the exisitence of the clinic, the 25 year time frame, etc.”

Sure you would. That’s the first thing you’d do. Why? Because of gullible souls like Ferguson, who jump to the conclusion that if the claims are made then obviously the claims would hold up under investigation. As long as there are rubes who think “These things are easy to investigate; therefore no one actually needs to investigate” then con men can get away with the very boldest lies.

As for the patent description being some sort of proof — pfft. Yeah, right. I can show you where patents have been granted for perpetual motion machines, compression algorithms that compress all inputs, and other impossible “inventions”. The idea that CellAdam must actually cure cancer simply because a patent examiner noted “the use of the above compounds in the therapy of tumorous diseases and for regenerating tumorous cells and tissues is also claimed” is utter baloney.

Help me bust ‘em! Join me at >>>>>>>
twitter.com/ponzibuster

I’ve recently learned that the company spent millions of dollars over the past 20+ years to support their claim with serious scientific studies.
How many companies that are selling ‘food supplements’ take the effort to support their claims with scientific studies?

Please check out the following link:
http://www.celladam.com/study.html

While I have little reason to believe that CellAdam is a miracle cure, I have little doubt that many comments to this article are made by pseudointellectual establishment snobs who want us to believe that pharmaceutical medicine is the only source of valid information.

In curing cancer , medicine has probably less success than faith – and I have little faith in faith-healers also. In respect to placebos, they have about the same rate of success as chemotherapy in all but about eight different types of cancer.

In respect to any company investing millions of dollars and many years in investigating, no upstart company can afford the amount of money required to compete with the pharmaceutical giants and their in-roads into the FDA aristocracy. If an upstart company comes close to proving a “cure”, the FDA will promply change the ground rules to extend the trials while the pharmaceutical companies continue to pile up profits on ineffective chemo agents. If you doubt this, check what has happened to Burzynski in his efforts to have his system approved. And his system has a long-term success record at treating some cancers that exceed that of competing cancer drugs.

While I have no reason to believe CellAdam will produce any miracle cures, let us not forget that the flawed science of chemotheraphy has also failed us.