|
We need to talk about essential oils! Did you know that just 2ml of eucalyptus oil is enough to cause severe poisoning in a child? (1) and that ingestion of essential oil has only been ‘a thing’ since the very recent rise of multi-level marketing companies. Essential oils have been used for over 6000 years. (2) In my clinic I am seeing an exponential rise in ‘injury’ from ingestion and incorrect topical application of essential oils in children and adults. The Western Australian Poisons Information Centre (WAPIC) has recorded an increase in poisonings as a result of essential oil ingestions in children. (3)  Most people mean well and want the very best for their children, family and friends however, I can’t imagine you would take medical advice from your shoe salesman nor ask your cleaning lady to file your tax returns!
Why accept medical advice for chronic and complex medical conditions such as eczema from a sales person with the best intentions but no formal training, qualifications or even a basic understanding of organic volatile compounds, contraindications and cytotoxicity of essential oils? What are symptoms of essential oil toxicity? Essential oils are rapidly absorbed orally and symptoms can develop as quickly as 30 minutes after ingestion (some individuals experience delayed symptoms up to 4 hours after exposure). The severity of toxicity is dependent on the type of oil and the amount ingested. (4) Children are particularly susceptible. As little as 2mL (less than half a teaspoon) of eucalyptus oil can cause significant poisoning in an infant. Symptoms of toxicity include:
Who can I call for help?
In Australia, only ‘Suitably qualified practitioners may prescribe the ingestion of essential oils providing the essential oils are combined with other non-essential oil ingredients which are included for therapeutic use and product is listed or registered on the TGA ARTG. The prescribed level of essential oil should be regarded as safe. That is the level of prescribed oil should be less than the maximum levels established by the Australian National Drugs and Poisons Scheduling Committee.’’ (5) For more information on the safe use of essential oils can be found here https://www.iaama.org.au/about-aromatherapy.html#essential-oil-safety The IAMMA are a not for profit! No profit in mind… And, as always seek professional advice! Australian registered aromatherapists can be found here http://www.ifaroma.org/us/find-an-aromatherapist/ And here https://www.myhealth1st.com.au/?skin=branded-atms and here http://www.australiannaturaltherapistsassociation.com.au/practitioners/find_health.php?S=&Therapy=Aromatherapy 1 https://www.rch.org.au/clinicalguide/guideline_index/Eucalyptus_Oil_Poisoning/ 2 http://www.atms.com.au/aromatherapy/ 3, 4 http://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/A_E/Essential-oils 5 http://www.atms.com.au/membershipold/professional-conduct/ The poisons record is a record of decisions regarding the classification of medicines and chemicals into Schedules for inclusion in relevant legislation of the states and territories; www.tga.gov.au/publication/poisons-standard-susmp
0 Comments
Most physicians and other healthcare professionals are unaware of the pervasiveness of poor quality clinical evidence that contributes considerably to overuse, underuse, avoidable adverse events, missed opportunities for right care and wasted healthcare resources. In his paper How To Survive the Medical Misinformation Mess, Stanford University professor of medicine and statistics John Ioannidis, an authority on scientific integrity, reveals only 7% of more than 60,000 clinical studies analysed passed criteria of being high quality and clinically relevant to patients. We should also be concerned about the very integrity of medical research on which doctors rely to make clinical decisions. In an international survey of respondents from higher education institutions, 14% admitted to knowing of a colleague who fabricated, falsified or modified data and 34% of scientists report questionable research practices that included selective reporting of clinical outcomes in published research and concealing conflicts of interest. During a recent keynote lecture at the British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation annual conference, I** gave the example of a man who had had a heart attack and been given statins and whose months of disabling muscle pain resolved within a week of stopping taking them. His elation was cut short when his GP told him he must never stop his statin or he could die. When the audience was asked to guess what his risk of death was from stopping the pill for two weeks, the first response was 25%. There were gasps when I revealed it was actually between zero and one in 10,000. ** Such statistical and health illiteracy, far from being the exception, is actually the norm. The majority of healthcare professionals seem unable to understand medical literature. One study revealed 70% of those on a training programme failed a simple test on their understanding of evidence-based medicine. A prominent Dutch physician, whose work is alleged to have influenced European of Society of Cardiology guidelines on the use of beta blocker drugs in non-cardiac surgery, was dismissed from Erasmus University for “violations in academic integrity”, including using “fictitious data” in research. A study carried out by Darrel Francis at Imperial College estimated that these guidelines increased patient mortality by 27%, resulting in 800,000 excess deaths over eight years across Europe. The lack of the medical profession’s awareness of the true extent of biased reporting and scientific fraud is underpinned by universities’ and medical journals’ reliance on the belief that research they produce is ethical and accurate. In evidence submitted to the parliamentary science and technology committee, cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst points out they are “as likely to admit the full magnitude of research misconduct as church leaders are to confess the extent of child abuse by priests”. Pharma companies are not legally bound to sell patients the best treatment, but they are obliged to provide profit for shareholders. Between 2009 and 2014, the industry received fines totalling $13bn for criminal behaviour that included illegal marketing of drugs, hiding data on harms and manipulation of results. As pointed out in a recent BMJ editorial “few systematic changes have occurred to prevent such problems occurring again”.  Earlier this year, the BBC reported on the results of a new cholesterol lowering drug for patients with heart disease, headlining the story “‘Huge advance’ in fighting world’s biggest killer”. Closer scrutiny revealed there was no reduction in death rates from heart disease, no reduction in deaths from any cause, and in European participants in the trial there was no reduction in any non-fatal heart attacks. In fact, there were 18 more deaths in patients who received the drug than those who didn’t.
The battle we face in healthcare is one of “truth versus money”, according to former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell. After almost two decades editing the journal, she reluctantly concluded that it was no longer possible to trust much of the literature that was published or rely on the authority of physicians or medical guidelines. The Academy of Medical Sciences has called for greater use of medicines to prevent rather than treat disease. This will be music to the ears of the drug industry, which can exploit a market in treating chronic disease by selling more pills. Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre of Evidence Based-Medicine at Oxford University, said in response “there are too many people with conflicts of interest taking decisions about policy and the way forward”. Systemic failure to regulate against the excesses of Big Food and Big Pharma is a false economy. A 2015 report by the investment bank Morgan Stanley revealed that the failure to tackle the “diabesity epidemic” from a high-sugar diet may result in close to 0% economic growth in OECD countries by 2035. It’s estimated that 20-50% of more than $3tn of healthcare activity in the United States is inappropriate, wasting resources and/or harming patients. According to Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, , side effects from prescription medications are the third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer. The crisis of trust has now reached grassroots doctors and patients, with a report from the Academy of Medical Sciences revealing more than four in five GPs – and two in three members of the public – don’t trust drug company-sponsored research. Could this be a tipping point for real change to wind back the harms of too much medicine contributing to the unnecessary deaths and harm to millions across the globe?
This is a look at the situation in the UK which sounds eerily similar to what is happening in Australia.  06 May 2017 To whom it may concern. I would like to make my submission in SUPPORT of OPTIONS 1 & 2; and state my opposition to options 3 & 4. The TGA Consultation paper refers to the 2015 NHMRC Homeopathy Review. The 2015 NHMRC Homeopathy Review is presently before the Australian Ombudsman due to complaints of bias, inaccurate and highly misleading findings and therefore should not have been cited in this consultation paper.
-NHMRC said it used “standardised accepted methods” but it didn’t. -To be “reliable” NHMRC made the arbitrary decision that a trial had to have at least 150 participants and meet an unusually high threshold for quality. The NHMRC regularly funds and collaborates on trials with fewer than 150 subjects. -Investigation shows NHMRC ‘invented’ unprecedented and arbitrary rules that dismissed 171 of the 176 studies leaving 5 that were considered ‘reliable’. Of the five, one was positive for homeopathy but the NHMRC still refused to accept its findings.”
-The original Chair of the NHMRC committee, Professor Peter Brooks, was a member of the anti-homeopathy lobby group, Friends of Science in Medicine. -The NHMRC also excluded homeopathy experts from the working committee in breach of its own mandatory research standards. “The NHMRC’s job was to accurately summarise all of the evidence for homeopathy. What we ended up with was a review that was biased, ignored positive evidence and violated mandatory administrative and research standards. Not only is it bad science, it also raises major concerns regarding the validity of NHMRC reviews.” “Positive, high quality studies do exist (1), and show that homeopathy works for a number of medical conditions such as hay fever, sinusitis and cough. These studies were excluded from the findings, as were all real-world clinical studies, which consistently demonstrate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of homeopathy in healthcare.” The NHMRC report cost taxpayers more than $800,000. 
Regulatory monitoring is required to ensure public safety (e.g. adverse reaction monitoring). This includes ensuring that products sold in Australia are manufactured according to Good Manufacturing Practice. TGA’s role is to protect public safety, not make value judgments about products Australians freely choose to use as therapeutic goods.  • Homeopathic Medicine is a Traditional medicine used worldwide recognized by World Health Organisation. On that basis alone it should be recognized as a therapeutic option. Under no circumstances should Homeopathy be removed as a therapeutic option. • The TGA has the ability and discretion to recognize Traditional forms of medicine and not just evidence based therefore it should continue to do so in the case of Homeopathy. • The NHMRC report set a higher standard to Homeopathy than the TGA currently use to assess efficacy and will use in the future to assess efficacy and therefore should not have been mentioned in this consultation paper as it is misleading and not relevant. • The NHMRC report is subject to a complaint to the Ombudsman and therefore should not have been cited in this consultation paper. • The UK government review cited in consultation paper was rejected by the UK Govt. and therefore should not have been mentioned to imply validity to its unaccepted conclusion.  • Option 1: There is a Swiss Report on Homeopathy which stated “There is sufficient evidence for the preclinical effectiveness and the clinical efficacy of homeopathy and for its safety and economy compared with conventional treatment.” – Why is this not included in the recommendations to give perspective and balance? • Option 2: requiring scientific evidence for higher therapeutic claims will be captured in the new guidelines and should be considered. • Option 3: of exemption is completely valid if it allows for continued use with low level claims and recognition of its Worldwide Traditional use as a medicine. • Option 4: Does not recognize the use and continued endorsement of Homeopathy by governments worldwide. It is out of step with regulatory frameworks worldwide and will be contrary to the rest of the world. Australia’s close ACSS Consortium regulatory partner, Switzerland, is giving homeopathy the same status as conventional medicine by May 2017 when it comes to health insurance. The TGA consultation paper selectively excludes any mention of the Swiss situation, or the widespread inclusion of homeopathy in multiple other international jurisdictions - indicating an unbalanced approach. The TGA paper selectively excludes mention of multiple positive research published on homeopathy, including a positive Swiss Health Technology Assessment, which the TGA would have in its library.  The best studies show Homeopathic medicines work (7).
Homeopathic medicine Clinical trials overview By the end of 2014, 189 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy on 100 different medical conditions had been published in peer-reviewed journals: (1) Of these, 104 papers were placebo-controlled and were eligible for detailed review: 41% were positive (43 trials) – finding that homeopathy was effective. 5% were negative (5 trials) – finding that homeopathy was ineffective. 54% were inconclusive (56 trials). Meta-analyses of homeopathy trials There have been 6 meta-analyses of homeopathy: five were positive – suggesting that there was some evidence of an effect of homeopathy beyond placebo, but more high quality research would be needed to reach definitive conclusions (2),(3),(4),(5),(7) One was negative – concluding that homeopathy had no effect beyond placebo: (6) Original conclusions from the 6 meta-analyses. Developing the evidence base – progress from 2005 to 2014. The sixth and most recent meta-analysis by Mathie et al., published in 2014, found that homeopathic medicines, when prescribed during individualised treatment, are 1.5- to 2.0- times more likely to have a beneficial effect than placebo.(7) Although the previous meta-analysis by Shang et al. continues to be referred to frequently, the 2014 study by Mathie et al. includes 151 placebo-controlled randomised trials – 41 more than Shang’s team identified in 2005, but which would have met their inclusion criteria if available at the time. This demonstrates the extent to which the 10 year-old Shang et al. paper, which now covers only 73% of the eligible trials, has been superseded by the paper by Mathie et al. (7) The TGA consultation paper makes the incorrect and biased value judgment that homeopathy is ‘not evidence based’. Truthfully, Sarah Penrose Dip.Hom.Med. AROH. AHA Australian Registered Homeopath (1) Faculty of Homeopathy | http://facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/ (2) Kleijnen, J., Knipschild, P. & ter Riet, G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ, 1991; 302: 960 | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1825800 (3) Linde, K. et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet, 1997; 350:834–843 | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601 (4) Linde, K. et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 1999; 52: 631–636 | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10391656 (5) Cucherat, M., Haugh, M. C., Gooch, M. & Boissel, J. P. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 2000; 56: 27–33 | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853874 (6) Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet, 2005; 366: 726–732 | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589 (7) Mathie RT et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 2014; 3: 142 https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142 Researchers have begun linking the exponential rise in the use of glyphosphate as herbicide on core crops and the corresponding rise in the incidence in a long list of debilitating diseases and conditions.  In 2014, Nancy Swanson and colleagues were the first researchers to recognize and publish an open access paper on the subject of glyphosphate and deteriorating health in America. [1] Glyphosphate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s product Roundup© and other herbicides that kill all plants except those crops such as corn, soy, canola, alfalfa, many grains and legumes, sugar cane, wheat, oats and barley which have been genetically engineered to resist it. Around 500 products containing glyphosate have been registered for use in Australia over the past 40 years. [2] In March 2017, the European Food Safety Authority declared ‘’the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction”.[3] Western Australia October 2016- Grain Producers Australia made an application to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) for a permit for emergency use of two formulations of glyphosate on barley. This permit was approved by the APVMA, Permit ≠82594 on the 2nd November 2016[4] and glyphosate treated grain is now accepted in Western Australia for Feed barley only. Feed grade barley is fed to livestock.  Some livestock producers say traces of glyphosphate in their sheep, cattle or dairy products could in the very least destroy trade relationships. "Our Australian meat goes to many markets around the world and some of these countries have very tight testing regimes for residues in the meat. If feed grain has residues, it gets into the animal and then gets into the human food chain. We need to be aware that there are many countries in the world now that have banned the product (glyphosphate) completely." [5] Malta, Sri Lanka, Argentina and the Netherlands are the countries which have banned the use of glyphosphate. [6] The discovery of a potentially new toxic mechanism of glyphosphate. Recently, researchers have found that Glyphosphate may be getting into proteins by mistake in the place of Glycine – glyphosphates' ability to disrupt pathways where glycine is normally involved is believed to be part of its toxicity profile, acting as a glycine analogue. [7]  Glyphosphate substitution for glycine in a protein can totally disturb the shape of the molecule. Not every protein that gets glyphosphate substituted for glycine in its peptide chain is totally wrecked by this error, however, there are hundreds if not thousands of proteins that strongly depend on glycine at certain spots in their chain to perform their job adequately.  Myosin – a molecular motor in muscle is one such protein. Myosin is responsible for muscle contraction and therefore movement. In the laboratory, if only one out of every 50 myosin molecules in a muscle fibre has its glycine swapped out for alanine (an amino acid) then that muscle loses half its strength! Researchers strongly suspect that the substitution of glyphosphate for glycine in myosin and other molecular motors is a causative factor in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) [8] and chronic fatigue syndromes. [9]  One molecule predicted to be severely affected by glyphosphate substitution for glycine is collagen, the most abundant protein in the body. Collagen is essential in cushioning our joints, and when defective due to glyphosphate contamination, it does its job poorly, leading to joint pain and tendonitis, among other things. Foods that contain high amounts of gelatin can be expected to be contaminated with glyphosphate, this includes bone broths, which ordinarily are very nutritious. You can help to reduce glyphosphate exposure for your family by switching to eating the highest quality of food- wild fish, biodynamic meats, fruit and veg are best -certified organic (not organic grain fed meat!) or free ranging whenever you can. In the Pilbara we have access to some of the best fishing in the world – fish makes the most delicious & nutritious of all the bone broths. You’ll be amazed at how the regular addition of fish broth to your meals can increase your energy and make your skin glow and hair shine!  Plain Fish broth recipe – Into a 5L slow cooker place 1 cut up freshly caught fish frame and head, ¼ Cup cider vinegar, a few bay leaves (to taste) and fill to capacity with the cleanest water you can get, rain or spring is best, filtered is ok. I place slow cooker outside (less odour) on low for 24 hours. Broth can be used after 6hours cooking time. Fish broth is a wonderfully flavouful & highly nutritious addition to any fish dish. Article derived in most from Stephanie Seneff, PhD. Glyphosphate in Collagen: Widespread consequences. Wise Traditions Winter 2016; 34:40. [1] http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/abstracts/Swanson-et-al.html Swanson NL, LEU A, AbrahamsonJ, Wallet B. Genetically engineered crops, glyphosphate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America. Journal of Organic Systems 2014; 9(2):6-37. [2] http://apvma.gov.au/node/13891 [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/15/no-cancer-risk-to-using-glyphosate-weedkiller-says-eu-watchdog [4] https://www.cbh.com.au/harvest-information/maximum-residue-limits [5]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-01/glyphosate-herbicide-crops-grain-weeds-livestock-sheep-cattle/7982524 [6] http://news.backtotheroots.com/2016/08/28/glyphosate-a-complete-list-of-all-countries-that-have-banned-it/ [7] Beecham J, Seneff S. The possible link between autism and glyphosphate acting as a glycine mimetic – a review of evidence from the literature with analysis. J Mol. Genet. Med. 2015; 9:4 [8] https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Fact-Sheets/Amyotrophic-Lateral-Sclerosis-ALS-Fact-Sheet [9] Seneff Stephanie, PhD. Glyphosphate in Collagen: Widespread consequences. Wise Traditions Winter 2016; 34:40.  On 4 Aug 2016, the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA),
Complementary Medicines Australia (CMA) & the Australian Traditional Medicine Association (ATMS) submitted a combined formal submission of complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman regarding the 2015 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) report into Homeopathy. The submission is an intensive, year-long investigation into bias, conflicts of interest, methodological flaws and procedural irregularities associated with NHMRC’s review that distorted its findings and conclusions. This is a milestone moment for Australian Homoeopathy and complimentary & Alternative medicine (CAM) in general. The industry has come together to formally ask the Ombudsman to make the NHMRC answerable for the highly questionable process it has undertaken. The Ombudsman is being asked to recommend that the report be taken down in its entirety and that NHMRC take reasonable steps to correct unjust third-party damage it has caused. No less than eight members of the skeptic group Friends of Science in Medicine were involved in the NHMRC review process, from the NHMRC Council to the NHMRC Principal Committee that guided the work, to the first Chair of the Homeopathy Working Committee, to a 2014 contractor engaged by the NHMRC. Worse, seven of these conflicts of interest were not disclosed at all; the other conflict was only partially disclosed with key details obfuscated. Stakeholders and the community expect higher standards. We hope this will represent a turning point in how government relates to the Homoeopathy and CAM sector, resulting in greater transparency and accountability within government, so that vested interest groups, such as the skeptics, can no longer distort government processes. Image taken from http://blog.ucsusa.org/francesca-grifo/five-reasons-congress-should-support-strong-conflict-of-interest-standards-at-fda Homeopathic medicine could possibly provide relief for acute respiratory (colds) and ear complaints in children & adults and has been shown to be more effective in treating these symptoms than conventional medicine.  In 2007, the outcomes of over 1500 patients suffering with at least one of the following complaints: acute runny nose, sore throat, ear pain, sinus pain or cough were studied and published. The patients, from 57 primary care practices in 8 countries, were given either Homeopathic medicine or conventional treatment.  The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of Homeopathic medicine compared to conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints. 857 people received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment. The majority of patients in both groups reported their outcome after 14 days of treatment as complete recovery or major improvement.  Figure 3 Onset of improvement within the first week. Onset of improvement within the first week of treatment (cumulative percentages of patients that experienced their first improvement). Children n = 659 (homeopathy, 407; conventional, 252) and adults n = 907 (homeopathy, 445; conventional, 462). Full-set analysis values with * p = 0.0448 for children and * p = 0.0001 for adults, using the Chi-square test on data points of the whole curve. This comparative cohort study conducted by the HomInt organisation, Karlsruhe, Germany, involved 1557 patients in primary care practices from 6 European countries, the UK and the USA; and demonstrates homeopathic medicine for acute respiratory and ear complaints. These results certainly contribute to the growing evidence that homeopathy could possibly be a beneficial treatment strategy for acute diseases in primary care settings. http://bmccomplementalternmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6882-7-7   Children and Homeopathic medicine Homeopathic medicine could possibly be of benefit in promoting the healthy development of children in common childhood illness such as ear infections. Homeopathic medicines can be given to children and babies- including newborns- with very little risk of toxic effects. Simple to administer and inexpensive, Homeopathic medicine tastes good too!  Parents attempting to provide their children with the best health care possible, often give course after course of antibiotics for common recurring illness such as ear infections. However, many are now seeking alternative treatments for their children (and themselves) when they fall ill. We live in a world of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) which the World Health Organization (WHO) describes as ‘‘a looming crisis in which common and treatable infections are becoming life threatening.’’ AMR is on the increase in Australia & evolving at a pace exceeding pharmaceutical companies’ ability to create newer antibiotic drugs.  Evidence-based advantages attributed to the use of Homeopathic medicine for ear infections include lower antibiotic prescription fill rates during watchful waiting in otitis media (ear infection), fewer and less serious side effects, the absence of drug-drug interactions and reduced parental sick leave from work.  |
AuthorSkilled in unravelling complex patterns of ill health, Sarah Penrose is a qualified, registered and endorsed natural health professional specializing in homeopathic medicine. Archives
May 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed
