Antroposofical medicine

j.mcdrmd

Anyone ever come across this?

Biologic

Anthroposophical medicine? It looks OK I suppose. All their practitioners are qualified doctors so at least they use the conventional therapy too. I get skeptical when I see phrases like "...chemotherapy in addition to anthroposophical medicines" though. If it worked, it'd just be called medicine without the anthrposophical qualifier. They don't seem to have as much emphasis on evidence based medicine too. One of their main treatments is mistletoe extract and isn't fully supported in the literature.
They seem to go against established protocol in certain areas, eg: vaccination schedules which they initiate later that conventional medicine, if at all. For many vaccines the efficacy drops as the person ages. This can be quite severe, for BCG Studies have shown the efficacy to drop from 82% in children under 15, to 67% in the 15-24 age group, and then to under 20% for over 25s. This study shows worryingly low MMR rates in US anthroposophical schools, though they are way ahead of us when it comes to restricting antibiotics.

eilo1

"In treatment, homeopathic and anthroposophic medicines are used in conjunction with conventional medicine."

I have never heard of it and am normally a bit sceptic to be honest. But I had a look at the website and read the above sentence. Homeopathy is quackery at its worst and if they are using it to "heal" you then they are conning you.

I would be wary. (but then Im probably bias )

Isadore

Homeopathy is not quackery and has plenty of evidence to support its efficacy, despite skeptical mantras to say otherwise.

Also, if somebody has a serious health condition - why not choose more than one health strategy to get better from it? Especially something like Homeopathy or Acupuncture which will not interfere or interact with conventional treatment.

I leave these links for your consideration.

Frequent False Statements about Homeopathy

Summary of Scientific Research in Homeopathy

cheers

Biologic

Isadore wrote: »

Homeopathy is not quackery and has plenty of evidence to support its efficacy, despite skeptical mantras to say otherwise.

Also, if somebody has a serious health condition - why not choose more than one health strategy to get better from it? Especially something like Homeopathy or Acupuncture which will not interfere or interact with conventional treatment.

I leave these links for your consideration.

Frequent False Statements about Homeopathy

Summary of Scientific Research in Homeopathy

cheers

I didn't read the first link. It's not peer reviewed and it's from the national centre for homeopathy, I mean come on...what do you expect it to say?
As for the summary of scientific research, did you read it yourself? I opened random links from the most reputable journals I could see and the conclusions were

not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.

and

we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition

I deliberately went looking for a journal with a positive result and the best I found (here) had absolutely no control or comparative treatment, plus it's marked as a double blind when it's very clearly not. Plus the vast majority of publications there are from CAM journals.
If anything, that page further convinced me that homeopathy is just a rebranded placebo.