Dangers of homeopathic medicine - Research Paper Example

?Running head: DANGERS OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE Dangers of Homeopathic Medicine (school) Dangers of homeopathic medicine Introduction Homeopathic medicine is a medical system which has been used by a number of citizens in the treatment of diseases and ailments. It has been developed in Germany over 200 years past and been practiced in the United since the 19th century. It has mostly been used for the apparent prevention and treatment of diseases and related conditions (National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2009). It is however a practice which has been rife with controversy, mostly due to safety concerns. This paper shall now discuss the dangers of homeopathic medicine. An initial discussion on the practice and application of homeopathy shall be presented, and then followed by a discussion on the dangers, risks, and issues related to the application of homeopathic medicine. Body Homeopathy defined/background Homeopathy comes from the Greek words homeo and pathos; homeo means similar and pathos means disease or suffering (NCCAM, 2009). Homeopathy aims to trigger the body’s ability to heal through small doses of diluted substances (NCCAM, 2009). This practice was first established by Samuel Hahnemann, who was a German physicist and this practice was based on the concept of similars or that ‘like cures like’ where an illness can be treated through substances which have similar symptoms among healthy individuals (NCCAM, 2009). Based on these concepts, those who practice homeopathic medicine manage individuals according to their genetic and personal history, and their physical, emotional, and mental issues (NCCAM, 2009). Sessions with these practitioners are usually long as the treatments are often fashioned based on individual characteristics. This type of treatment is also often drawn from natural substances including plants, minerals, and even animals. Usual homeopathic remedies may sometimes include the use of red onions, arnica, and stinging nettle plant (NCCAM, 2009). Use in the United States Based on a National Health Interview Survey in 2007, which details a survey of the use of complementary and alternative medicine in the US, about 3.9 million adults and 900,000 children have resorted to homeopathy (NCCAM, 2009). They have been known to use it for a variety of reasons and health issues, including the prevention of disease, the promotion of general well-being, and the treatment and management of diseases like allergies, asthma, depression, headaches, diarrhea, cough, colds, and skin diseases (NCCAM, 2009). Dangers of homeopathic medicine Homeopathic remedies are ineffective remedies for illnesses. It is important to note while reviewing the dangers homeopathy poses that illnesses are often not responsive to the microdoses which are often utilized by homeopathy because they actually need other medical remedies, like surgery (Ullman, 1991). Moreover, other medical conditions may also call for an immediate management of symptoms; and other diseases may need to be managed through lifestyle changes including diet and exercise. In some cases, these medical issues may also be easily managed by limiting exposure to environmental issues and often do not need to be managed through homeopathic remedies. During the early 1900s, some of the US surgeons were also homeopathic doctors. This disposition therefore supports the notion that at some point during human medical history, homeopaths were not totally against surgery as they did recognize the purpose and value of surgery when it matters. Supporters of this remedy in fact claimed that homeopathic remedies provided great value in limiting the need for surgery and under certain circumstances these remedies helped heal the patients after the surgery (Ullman, 1991). These reports are however unsubstantiated and unverified. For the most part, homeopathic interventions are not effective in addressing life-threatening symptoms and diseases which require immediate and emergency methods of treatment. For example, asthma incidents where breathing is severely impaired needs the immediate administration of antibiotics as a means of preventing brain damage and even death. Other diseases also call for remedies within conventional medicine in order to ensure patient survival (Ullman, 1991). Homeopathic medicine poses inherent dangers as they present options or remedies to individuals which often prompt them to minimize the use of conventional medicine (Ullman, 1991). In emergency situations, homeopathic remedies which are often fashioned based on individual patients, can cause delays in delivery of care. While homeopathic practitioners are planning care for the patients, their patient’s symptoms may already be getting worse, thereby placing the patient’s life at risk (Ullman, 1991). Homeopathic remedies are also ineffective in the management of illnesses, especially those which require simple remedies including lifestyle changes. For example, a patient may have iodine deficiency and homeopathic remedies may be planned and prescribed to address many of his symptoms; some of these may also improve his iodine absorption. However, for as long as his diet is not adjusted to include iodine, his symptoms would likely persist (Ullman, 1991). Being exposed to toxic environmental chemicals may also lead to major health issues. When patients seek homeopathic remedies for issues like exposure to toxins, the actual improvement may not be seen if exposure to the toxin would persist. If a female patient would seek consult with a homeopathic doctor for a skin rash, the doctor may prescribe Sulfur 30. Based on Hering’s Law, her condition would likely worsen, and then improve, and later return after a couple of weeks (Ullman, 1991). The homeopath may then recommend a stronger dose for the Sulfur and the patient may go through the same pattern, with the eventual persistence of her symptoms. On further assessment of the patient’s condition, it may be revealed that she is working in a food processing plant where sulfur is sprayed to dried fruit plants as preservatives. The patient was actually experiencing an allergic reaction to the sulfur which was not actually treated, instead was exacerbated by the Sulfur 30 that the homeopathic doctor prescribed. In this case, homeopathy actually worsened her toxicity to sulfur and did not, in any way, relieve her condition. In a discussion by the Creighton University (2008), dangers associated with the use of homeopathic medicine included delayed treatment, wasted resources, and nocebo effect. Delayed treatment was already discussed in part and to reiterate, homeopathic interventions can sometimes delay the administration of remedies in conventional medicine. Homeopathic remedies are largely available in over-the-counter forms and with this ease of access, patients may be prompted to self-medicate when they actually have serious diseases which actually require immediate and conventional medical interventions (Creighton University, 2008). The use of homeopathic remedies is particularly an issue as these remedies are often labeled based on the conditions which they treat. In effect, a patient wanting a homeopathic remedy for pain can easily get the medicine in the pharmacy. For the most part, the pain may be relieved and the patient may then forget about the condition. However, the patient may not know that his pain is actually a symptom for a more serious condition including a stroke or even a heart attack. The delay in the treatment of these serious conditions can unfortunately mean the difference between life and death. Homeopathic interventions can also be very expensive. Most practitioners actually consider them placebos and seeking consult for the prescription and administration of these interventions can sometimes be a waste of money (Creighton University, 2008). The redeeming element in this case is based on the fact that placebo effects are very much real and in the end, especially for minor, psychological, and self-limiting conditions, the placebo effect may actually be worth its cost. Nevertheless, due to its limited applicability and effectiveness, homeopathic interventions can indeed be a waste of patient’s resources. Another problem associated with homeopathy is the nocebo effect (Creighton University. Supporters of homeopathy argue that specific illnesses can be treated by homeopathy and that such effect is not attributable to the placebo effect. With this argument, homeopathy has various specific remedies for specific conditions. However, when the problem of toxicity is pointed out, supporters argue that the homeopathic remedies are dormant and do not affect the overall body functions. To support this belief argument, their Homeopathic Reference Manual basically indicates that there is no inherent danger in taking in the wrong drug or too much of the drug (Creighton University, 2008). This is a very dangerous belief because it ultimately encourages the use of drugs, even if the drug is the wrong drug. Toxicity in homeopathy is therefore likened to placebo, however, clinicians are quick to point out that although placebos bring about the placebo effect, they can also bring about toxicity or the nocebo effect (Creighton University, 2008). All homeopathic drugs are therefore expected to have side effects in the same vein as those seen in placebos. This consideration is however often dismissed by homeopaths. Clinicians like Hahnemann has recognized this dilemma and points out that there is “almost no homeopathic medicine, be it ever so suitably chosen that…will not produce, in very irritable patients…at least one trifling, unusual disturbance, some slight new symptom while its action lasts” (Creighton University, 2008). For which reason, much care is expressed on the use of homeopathic medicine based on its possible toxicities. The World Health Organization (2009) also discusses the various dangers associated with homeopathic remedies. Two major potential issues have been discussed by the WHO and these issues relate to the source materials, and also relate to the procedures used in the manufacture of finished products (WHO, 2009). Homeopathic remedies are often extracted from natural or synthetic ingredients which are supported by pharmacopeial monographs and other documents. Sources may include: plant materials like roots, leaves, stems, bark, lichen, and pollen; microorganisms like fungi, bacteria, and viruses; animal materials like animal organs, tissues, secretions, and blood products; human materials like tissues, cell lines, and hormones; and mineral and chemicals (WHO, 2009). The quality of these sources as well as the excipients is an important consideration in the manufacture of homeopathic medications. Homeopathic remedies may utilize materials which are often problematic and where their use is limited under conventional medical practice. Moreover, materials from animals and humans often have an inherent risk of being contaminated with pathogenic materials (WHO, 2009). Furthermore, these remedies may come from toxic sources from plants or animals, and other materials may also have a predisposition towards degradation (WHO, 2009). There are various issues in the quality control of these remedies. Firstly, homeopathic remedies containing plant materials may sometimes be contaminated with pesticides and heavy chemicals and the toxicities may vary for each plant (WHO, 2009). Good manufacturing practice standards on the manufacture, packaging, and labeling are applicable to homeopathic as well as conventional medicines. Failure to follow these guidelines can cause major safety concerns including misidentification and impurities in starting materials, as well as cross-contamination and incidence contamination (WHO, 2009). The particular qualities in the manufacture of homeopathic remedies have a variety of implications for manufacturers and personnel. These personnel have to manage toxic chemicals, sometimes fresh ones, which are often vulnerable to degradation and contamination. Qualities of homeopathic remedies may sometimes be endangered “by accidental or intentional contamination of source materials, excipients or diluents, or by vessel of bottle in which the dilution is made” (WHO, 2009, p. 5). These toxic elements would later contaminate the homeopathic remedy and serve to do more harm than good to a patient’s condition. Quality control challenges are also a major issue in the use of homeopathic remedies. The burden of proving that medical products comply with quality requisites are placed on manufacturers. This is the same expectation of manufacturers of homeopathic medications. Manufacturers for homeopathic medications have since implemented measures to ensure the quality of their products and their compliance with the requisites of the GMP. However, this may sometimes not be true for countries where the production of the remedies is not a requisite element of licensing. In a discussion by Novella (2009), he discusses that “like does not cure like” and that the effect of homeopathic remedies can be described as mere sympathetic magic, something which may be trendy for a while but after a while is “nothing more than superstition without any scientific basis”. Novella (2009) also discusses that the act of diluting substances would not actually make it any more effective and this idea actually contrasts with the rules and principles of thermodynamics and of mass action. This anomaly is particularly apparent when a substance is diluted beyond the point where any active ingredient actually remains (Novella, 2009). Water used as diluents also does not magically retain the qualities of the substance diluted within its depths and the interactions with the water molecules does not confer upon these molecules the ability to maintain the essential chemicals of the homeopathic remedy. “It is therefore demonstrably true, even with simple high school level science, that the plausibility of homeopathy, for all practical purposes, and the extent that it is possible to make such statements within the methodology of science=is zero” (Novella, 2009). These considerations therefore lead to the contention that homeopathy is a failure in medicine in terms of achieving improved outcomes among patients. Ernst (2005) also discusses that although proponents of homeopathic interventions claim that homeopathic remedies are risk-free, these remedies can actually cause harm. In instances where homeopaths prevent the implementation of effective conventional interventions, harm on the patient may be seen. This is very much apparent in the case of homeopaths advising mothers not to immunize their children (Enst, 2005). Harm is also apparent in instances of homeopathic aggravations where in applying the like cures like principle, homeopaths would carry out the homeopathic remedy and some patients are expected to go through homeopathic aggravations or a healing crisis where their symptoms often get worse before they become better (Ernst, 2005). When viewed by a patient and by conventional medicine, these symptoms or ‘aggravations’ are actually adverse effects of the remedy. Believing therefore that homeopathic remedies are devoid of adverse effects is therefore very much wrong. In an article from the Denver Post (Donn, 2009), a particular homeopathic remedy known as Zicam Cold Remedy was discussed and revelations as to its negative effects have been unveiled by regulators. This drug, which has been widely dispensed for years, has never actually been federally reviewed for safety. For a while, this has not been an issue, however when many users lost their sense of smell, a review of its quality was carried out (Donn, 2009). Homeopathic remedies are drugs composed of natural materials which are highly diluted and which are often not checked by federal authorities. And yet, this lack of federal check cannot be justified in the face of complaints associated with the use of these remedies. In a report by the Food and Drug Administration, side-effects from about 800 homeopathic ingredients were linked with various health issues, with complaints including vomiting, attempted suicide, and in the case of Zicam, the loss of the sense of smell (Donn, 2009). About 130 users of the drug reported loss of their sense of smell. This prompted manufacturers of the drug to stop production of their Zicam products laced with zinc gluconate. The federal agency also recommended the testing of various homeopathic remedies for quality and health benefits before they would be marketed. Reassessments on the impact of homeopathic remedies still indicate that active homeopathic ingredients are usually diluted to 1 part per million or less, however some of these ingredients are still seen in higher concentrations (Donn, 2009). The FDA has established specific limits on alcohol in medicine, especially for drugs administered to children, however these limits are not applicable to homeopathic drugs. While the American Academy of Pediatrics express that no medicine given to children should carry more than 5% of alcohol, the FDA acknowledges that fact that some homeopathic remedies carry as much as 10% alcohol (Donn, 2009). It is also important to note that studies by the FDA reveal that at least 20 ingredients in conventional drugs including digitalis and morphine are also present in homeopathic medicines (Donn, 2009). Other homeopathic remedies are also taken from cancerous and diseased tissues; and some are even derived from powerful poisons. And yet their concentration and dilution in the homeopathic drugs is at best, very much dubious, causing much concern on their actual benefit to the patient. Goldacre (2007) discusses how five large meta-analyses studies on the use of homeopathic medications have been carried out and all displayed the same result: that homeopathy did not have any statistically significant benefits over placebo. However, Goldacre (2007) pointed out that the benefits which homeopaths perceive from their remedies are mostly based on the placebo effect. This was apparent in the 19th century when the London Homeopathic Hospital had death rates which were lower than the rates at the Middlesex Hospital. No scientific benefits for the difference in death rates could however be established to support the use of homeopathy in the hospital. The bottom line is still ever lingering – that homeopathic remedies still have unfavorable effects (Goldacre, 2007). The act itself of taking a pill has its inherent risks, which includes medicalization, reinforcement of counterproductive illness behaviors, and the perpetuation of the concept that a pill is a favorable response to a social issue or a minor viral disease (Goldacre, 2007). Concrete harms are also apparent with the use of homeopathic remedies. Homeopathic medicine often has the unfortunate practice of denigrating conventional medicine. More than half of homeopathic practitioners often advise their patients not to have their children vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella (Goldacre, 2007). Many of them also recommend homeopathic prophylaxis against malaria, which are largely ineffective and which undermined conventional prophylaxis. No advice on bite prevention was also given (Goldacre, 2007). The act of undermining conventional medicine is a favorable practice for homeopaths because many individuals who are disappointed about the effects of conventional medicine often eventually turn to homeopathic medicine. However, this practice is largely irresponsible because it would eventually undermine public health campaigns (Goldacre, 2007). Undermining public health campaigns would also make the public vulnerable to fatal diseases and in some instances, to disregard fatal diagnosis which patients should be seeking medical attention for. Instances of patients dying after being told by homeopaths to stop their medical treatments have been reported (Sheldon, 2007). All these issues have been made worse by the eagerness of homeopaths and other supporters to highlight the apparent healing benefits of homeopathic medicine. Homeopaths have also been known to express false representations of scientific evidence to the general and unsuspecting public. However, in the process, they are also undermining the importance of scientific support for treatment. This practice is very much unfortunate when scholars and researchers are trying their best to seek the support of the public in understanding the benefits of research and scientific evidence in relation to the medical options and interventions being considered. McAlpin (2009) also discusses how the World Health Organization has objected to the promotion of homeopathic medicine in the management of disease in Africa. Homeopathic medicine has apparently been used to convince individuals under legitimate WHO treatment programs for malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS, diarrhea, and herpes to use homeopathic medicine instead of conventional medicine (McAlpin, 2009). What makes the situation very unfortunate is that homeopathic medicine is being promoted as an effective alternative to conventional medicine with some clinics advising that conventional medicine can only bring about temporary relief. Individuals in developing countries are the ones who benefit the most from the public health programs under the WHO and promoting homeopathic medicine as a cheap and effective choice makes the implementation of health programs more difficult. More importantly, it places the lives of the people at risk and compromises the use of conventional medicine (McAlpin, 2009). Upon receiving information about this practice in Africa, the WHO was quick in responding and in reiterating the fact that there is little scientific evidence to prove that homeopathic medicine is effective in the treatment of diseases, especially those rampant in Africa. They also emphasized that homeopathy does not highlight treatment and prevention of diseases, and this is very much contradictory to the goals of the WHO in Africa (McAlpin, 2009). McAlpin (2009) also pointed out that homeopathic medicine is often falsely interpreted as an effective alternative to conventional medicine, however, its efficacy as a form of treatment has yet to be proven. Until that point is reached, promoting it as an effective alternative to conventional medicine would only seek to endanger the lives of those who would benefit from conventional applications of medicine. As was mentioned previously, the dangers of homeopathic medicine can also be found with their actual material composition. In instances when plant materials are used, compliance with the quality standards is an important consideration. Plant materials can be complex and variable; and they can also be contaminated with microbes, insects, pesticides, and fumigants (WHO, 2009). As a result of these issues, the use of these plants can have inherent risks for the application of homeopathic medicine. Manufacturers must therefore comply with the strict standards in order to identify the risks involved in the plant materials and the necessary activities they have to carry out to prevent these materials from contaminating the homeopathic medicine. Homeopathic remedies which come from healthy or diseases animals of humans also present issues which relate to microbial and viral contamination (WHO, 2009). Failure of manufacturers to comply with the adequate and validated functions during filtration, pasteurization, sterilization, and precipitation can cause the manifestation of significant toxicities on the part of the user-patient (WHO, 2009). One process of dilution would not sufficiently ensure microbial or viral safety and several processes must be carried out with significant accuracy in order to validate their quality. When derived from animal products, all possible pathogens in the animal can be passed on to the homeopathic remedy if there is a failure in the filtration and other processes (WHO, 2009). Source materials from humans are vital sources of infection through known and also unknown infectious agents (WHO, 2009). As blood products are used, contamination is always possible; moreover, human-derived products including extracts from the liver or the pituitary gland, the tonsils, may already be contaminated with bacteria and viruses. In some instances, the donors are often not adequately screened for pertinent medical qualities which may have a significant impact on homeopathic remedies (WHO, 2009). Minerals and chemicals as source materials for homeopathic remedies also carry with them various risks, mostly in relation to contamination with heavy metals and other toxic elements (WHO, 2009). In some cases, purification processes are not adequately carried out and can contaminate the final product. The fact that some homeopathic remedies do not undergo federal testing often exacerbates the risk for toxicities in relation to these homeopathic medications. The overall quality of these homeopathic medications can also be impacted by the impurities as well as incidental elements during the final preparation of the product, including its manufacturing and storage (WHO, 2009). In effect, the contamination can occur during the final stages of the production process, including its packaging process. Contaminants may include microbial elements, metals, and pesticide residues. Such contaminants can unfortunately create a significant risk among patients and must therefore be reduced (WHO, 2009). The burden is therefore on the manufacturers to review all the stages of production, from actual extraction of material elements to their storage and packaging. For the most part however, since many homeopathic remedies do not undergo federal quality testing procedures, many homeopathic remedies are not reassessed in terms of their incidental risks and impurities. One of the most common dangers involved in homeopathic medicine is the fact that many homeopaths recommend homeopathy as an alternative to conventional medicine – meaning, homeopaths often advice their patients to switch to homeopathic medicine and to abandon their conventional medications (Travis, 2010). This may actually not be dangerous however for patients who are seriously ill or who may be under maintenance medication for hypertension or for diabetes, switching to homeopathic remedies and stopping their maintenance medications can be an unhealthy and dangerous advice. In evaluating its efficacy based on research results, the British Homeopathic Association revealed that out of 87 placebo-controlled clinical studies, 37 of them indicated that homeopathic medications are effective; a greater percentage indicated that it is ineffective (Travis, 2010). More studies in this regard have been recommended by experts and scholars in order to establish firm and unbiased results on the use of these homeopathic remedies. Cockcroft (2007) discussed that Sir David King, a top chief scientific government adviser expressed how people who are using homeopathic medications are actually placing their lives at risk. King further discussed how homeopathy had no clear medical purpose and the danger actually lies in how people are relying on it to resolve their medical issues (Cockcroft, 2007). It was also wrong for the Department of Health to support the use of alternative medicine in the face of the fact that there is no evidence that it actually works. Medical labels placed on homeopathic remedies are also not driven by science and that these labels cannot be trusted without scientific evidence supporting them. The support given by the National Health Services for homeopathic remedies actually places conventional medicine at risk, setting forth a dangerous connotation that homeopathic remedies work as well as conventional remedies. Adverse effects on the use of homeopathic remedies were also seen in various studies, as compiled in a review by Fisher (2002). Adverse effects include the following: aggravation, stomach ache, loose stools, pimples, tiredness, influenza-like syndrome, myalgia, low-grade fever, rhinorrhea, headache, rashes, itching, earaches, slight nausea in the morning, repeated aggravations, irritability, aggressive behavior, eczema, vomiting, increased perspiration, hyperactivity, ear discharge, constipation, restlessness, cough, epistaxis, and convulsion (Fisher, 2002). These adverse effects represent a wide-range of effects which are seen across a variety of studies. These effects are often downplayed by homeopaths that often refuse to acknowledge the fact that these effects may be caused by toxicities related to the homeopathic medications. Homeopathy as an ethical problem Based on the above discussion of homeopathy, it is very much apparent to note that the dangers of its use clearly outweigh any placebo effect it may bring to the patient. Based on a utilitarian assessment, homeopathy must therefore be discredited. The issue of how homeopaths and medical practitioners must now act seems to emerge from this utilitarian view. For the most part, the various applications of medicine have no particular ethical elements, and in these cases, the ethical decisions open to practitioners are salient “only in respect of how these elements are employed” (Smith, 2011, p. 11). For example, dialysis machines or hypodermic needles present without any ethical considerations: mostly, these are medical tools and the ethical issues in their use only refer to how they would be used or whether they are the preferred choices of the patients. However, these medical tools only give rise to moral considerations if they are inherently ineffective. In effect, using a cheap medical tool, like a cheap nebulizer which is unable to generate mist for the patient cannot be utilized in an ethically acceptable fashion (Smith, 2011). This machine when used in conventional medicine is unacceptable and its use is morally unacceptable. In applying this understanding to homeopathy, it must not be used as a medical tool. Since it is already by nature, very much ineffective, its application cannot also be qualified as ethically neutral (Smith, 2011). In effect, its purchase, distribution, and promotion are very much unacceptable, and therefore, support for its use by the medical profession, as well as individual citizens must be negated. Conclusion The above discussion explains the various dangers involved in homeopathic medicine. Homeopathic remedies carry with them inherent dangers, mostly those which relate to adverse effects which may be attributed to toxicities which are not adequately eliminated from the medication through the process of filtration and purification. The fact that homeopathic remedies are often promoted as alternatives to conventional medicine sends forth the wrong message to patients, placing their lives in danger and causing them to take unnecessary risks with their lives and their health. In effect, homeopathic medicine presents risks in relation to the safety and the quality of medical care received by patients, especially those needing emergency care, and those with serious medical conditions. References Cockcroft, L. (2007). Homeopathic remedies 'put lives at risk'. Telegraph. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571800/Homeopathic-remedies-put-lives-at-risk.html Creighton University (2008). Dangers. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/dangers.htm Donn, J. (2009). Homeopathy and potential hazards: Zicam suits spur re-examination. Denver Post. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_12615248 Ernst, E. (2005). Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 26(11), 547-548. Fisher, P. (2002). The safety of homeopathic products. J R Soc Med. 95(9), 474–476. Goldacre, B. (2007). Benefits and risks of homoeopathy. The Lancet. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/the-lancet-benefits-and-risks-of-homoeopathy/ McAlpin, C. (2009). World Health Organization backs young scientists in exposing dangers of homeopathy in Africa. Skepticism Examiner. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://www.examiner.com/skepticism-in-national/world-health-organization-backs-young-scientists-exposing-dangers-of-homeopathy-africa National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine. (2009). Homeopathy: An Introduction. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/ Novella, S. (2009). Closing the Door on Homeopathy. Science-Based medicine. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/closing-the-door-on-homeopathy/ Shelton, T. (2007). Dutch doctor struck off for alternative care of actor dying of cancer. BMJ, 335, 13. Smith, K. (2011). Against homeopathy – a utilitarian perspective. Bioethics. Retrieved 13 January 2012 from http://files.meetup.com/1782915/Against%20Homeopathy.pdf Travis, E. (2010). What Are the Dangers of Homeopathic Medicine?. Livestrong. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://www.livestrong.com/article/95115-dangers-homeopathic-medicine/ Ullman, D. (2009). The Limitations and Risks of Homeopathic Medicine. Homeopathic Education. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Introduction_to_Homeopathy/The_Limitations_and_Risks_of_Homeopathic_Med.html Ullman, D. (1991). Discovering homeopathy: medicine for the 21st century. New York: North Atlantic Books. World Health Organization (2009). Safety issues in the preparation of homeopathic medications. Retrieved 09 January 2012 from http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/Homeopathy.pdf Read More