Homeopathic remedies reduce outdoor worries
It was early September. As per my usual daily routine, I was dropping my two kids off at their Montessori school. Aysha, my very mature and independent 5-year-old, bounded up the school steps and greeted the teacher at the door confidently. Her younger sister, Sahara, age four, was not as keen as her sister to get to class. Sahara, who is more goofy by nature, was more interested in hanging and climbing on the metal railing outside of the school. As she placed her hand on the metal bars, her silly smile turned into a painful grimace and she let out a bloodcurdling scream. She started crying hysterically. I ran to see what had happened and discovered the source of her distress, a huge wasp on the railing. Her hand was swollen from the sting, and I could tell by the size of the wasp and by her reaction that she was in a lot of pain.
Other parents were giving me advice such as, “Put some baking soda on it,” but I knew exactly what to do. I rushed Sahara home and promptly gave her a couple doses of homeopathic Apis mellifica. Immediately, the swelling went down, and Sahara collected herself and stopped screaming. Half an hour after she was stung, I sent her back to school with a few doses of Apis in her pocket. Later that night, all traces of the bee sting were gone. (Of course, if you are allergic to bee venom or are showing signs of a severe reaction to a sting, go immediately to the nearest emergency room.)
Homeopathy is a system of natural medicine that has been used effectively for chronic and acute health conditions for more than 200 years. It was first pioneered by German doctor Samuel Hahnemann. It is such a versatile form of medicine that it can also be used for first aid. Unfortunately, homeopathy is not very well known in North America. It is, however, very popular in other parts of the world, such as Europe and India. In London, for example, they even have a homeopathic hospital. Prince Charles is a very loyal and vocal advocate for homeopathy.
Homeopathic remedies come in sugar-pill form, and are therefore very pleasant and sweet-tasting. Parents have no problem getting their kids to take homeopathic remedies because of this. Homeopathic remedies should always be taken dry, with no food or drink, dissolved under the tongue. They can be purchased at local health-food stores or at some homeopathic clinics. Most homeopathic products in Canada are distributed by a homeopathic company based in Quebec, called Boiron. Some homeopathic clinics also sell homeopathic first-aid kits, which I strongly believe no household should be without.
I rely solely on my homeopathic first-aid kit for my children’s injuries. Whenever Sahara and Aysha fall down or get injured, I immediately reach for the Arnica bottle after the normal cleaning of any scrapes or cuts. Arnica is a remedy that is good for any type of injury, especially for the prevention of bruising and swelling after a fall or impact. Immediately after taking one dose of Arnica, my children stop crying. Before using Arnica, my children bruised normally just like other children. Now, because I usually use this remedy, they hardly ever bruise. Also, if they have hit themselves on the head and a goose egg appears, I give them a few doses of Arnica and the swelling goes down and the goose egg disappears within a few hours. Don’t believe me? Try it yourself. I use it only in a high 1M potency. Because of this strength, only one dose is needed. For more severe impacts, the 1M might have to be repeated a few more times in 15- to 30-minute intervals.
When it comes to injuries, Arnica is unbelievably useful. I cannot say enough good things about this remedy. It is like magic. After any type of injury, whether it be a muscle strain, puncture wound, or bruise, take one dose of Arnica first. After that, give one of the remedies listed below for the specific type of injury that is indicated.
Apis was mentioned at the beginning of this article. It is a very good remedy to have on hand, one that is used to take away the pain, swelling, and redness after a bee sting or insect bite. I like to use this remedy in a 200C potency, repeated every 15 to 30 minutes for a few doses.
To prevent infection, homeopaths use a remedy called Ledum palustre. If your child is running around the beach or park barefoot and steps on glass or a rusty nail that pierces the skin, think of Ledum. If the wound looks serious, you can administer this remedy on your way to the hospital. Common sense is, obviously, your best defence. It is also useful to prevent infection after an animal bite. Ledum works best in the 30C potency. It can be given every 15 to 30 minutes in three doses, then can be given three times a day until the danger of infection has passed. If an infection develops that quickly gets worse or does not respond to this treatment, visit emergency.
We also use Calendula cream topically, which is very good for closing minor open wounds.
Hypericum is a remedy that we use for injuries to nerves. The main indication for Hypericum is shooting pain. In cases where there is a wound that is already infected, Ledum will not help. Once a wound is infected and there is shooting pain, you must use Hypericum. It is also a useful remedy for any kind of nerve pain and spinal injuries. This remedy works best in the 30C or 200C potency, repeated every 15 to 30 minutes until there is relief. Of course, if the injury or infection is serious, use your common sense and also visit the doctor or hospital.
Now we are going to talk about two very common sports-injury remedies: Rhus toxicodendron and Bryonia. Rhus tox and Bryonia are for injuries to the muscles, joints, and tendons. Bryonia is the right medicine if the injury is worse from any kind of motion and better from lying down and not moving the injured part. With a Rhus tox injury, the injury might be worse from starting to move, but once the person gets moving the injury feels better. Generally, with Rhus tox, movement brings relief to the injury. For these remedies, use either the 30C or 200C potency. A few repetitions 15 to 30 minutes apart should bring relief. If the problem is more chronic, a 30C potency repeated three times a day may be necessary.
For injuries of the cartilage, bones, and ligaments, we use Ruta graveolens. It can also be a useful remedy for sprains and strains if Arnica, Rhus tox, or Bryonia have not helped. This remedy has a special affinity for the knees and elbows and can be given in a 30C or 200C potency, like Bryonia or Rhus tox, repeated a few times or daily if needed.
There are more homeopathic first-aid remedies, but these are the basic ones that everyone should have in their first-aid kit. Carry these remedies with you to the great outdoors, and you can play and enjoy your summer worry-free. For more chronic conditions, you may have to consult a classical homeopath.
Sonya McLeod is a classical homeopath practising in her private Vancouver clinic. Further inquiries can be directed to her at 604-677-7742.




Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Comments
Homeopathy, when used constitutionally for the totality of your symptoms (mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical), can have transformative power greater than any other kind of medicine (allopathic or alternative) that I have ever seen. While it is true that homeopathy has no scientific evidence supporting it (that is, there is not yet a theory or explanation explaining how it works), there is vast clinical evidence and literature not only supporting but also proving its efficacy.
Before Einstein formulated his theory of relativity, the Newtonian view of the world was purely mechanical. Allopathic as well as some other alternative modalities act on this mechanical basis. Homeopathy, however, acts on a completely different plane, the energetic one. Now, this is uncharted territory not only for the medical person and biologist, but even for the physicist, even though they are covering new ground as far as quantum mechanics goes and the ture structure of the universe. My guess is it will be a while before the scientists will be able to explain how homeopathy works...but I am not going to be the one holding my breath until they find an explanation.
Honestly, I feel sorry for the skeptics that are not open enough, or will never be open enough, to truly experience the transformative and healing properties of the mysterious and intriguing art (and future science) that we call homeopathy. These people will probably be at their death bed still not open to even try homeopathy, while it could help, just because of a limiting belief system and stubborn personality. After all, similar skeptics were holding on so tight to the belief that the Earth was flat (before there was any evidence pointing otherwise) that when the Earth was proved to be round, they still believed the Earth was flat...
Luckily, I will be smiling when the homeopathic medical revolution comes along, and when the true healing art makes its way back to the place where it belongs...in the hearts, minds, and drawers of all cultures of the world. Thank you homeopathy.
Ms. McLeod's advice is, at best, quixotically naive; at worst, irresponsible and dangerous. "For more chronic conditions, you may have to consult a classical homeopath." Oh, please. Anyone purporting to give medical advice ought to have actual training; everything else is tantamount to the foolishness of faith healing. This is not skepticism; this is common sense.
COUNTLESS numbers of animals and babies have benefited from homeopathy and these organisms are not subject to the placebo effect.
Quantum physics is moving us closer to an understanding of the workings of energetic medical modalities like homeopathy.
If only it was just the sceptics enduring the pharmaceutical side-effects in the interim.
Our existence during this particular time in history is so seeped in scientific advantage that we must excite in the endless possibilities of future human 'truths' and knowledge - not mindlessly down all that is, and will continue to dawn throughout our lifetime. We must remember that we are, and have always been on a continuum.
To many of us, the definition of medicine is whatever works - plain and simple. A few current definitions of medicine include "any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness" and "the art or science of restoring or preserving health or due physical condition". Whether homeopathy succeeds by way of methods that contemporary science can or cannot prove is irrelevant. We cannot conclusively judge a system of medicine that does work, based science alone, we may merely critique it.
T.H. Huxley described science as "organised common sense" (see BC Skeptics webpage). I would maintain that the countless cases of health restored and preserved by homeopathy, or any other system for that matter, should be enough proof for our organised common sense at this point in history.
I can be easily convinced you are right and I am wrong. Can you say the reverse? What experiment, or series of experiments, would satisfiy you you are wrong? If your answer is "none" (i.e.: you *know* you are right), then you are lost.
There have been many, many, many studies on the efficacy of homeopathy, and they all reach one conclusion. It works no better than placebo. While the treatments are harmless (they are made from water), they become harmful when people substitute them for real medicine.
If your child steps on a rusty nail, don't go to a homeopathist. Rush them to the doctor and get a Tetanus shot.
Period.
The references in the article to 'concentrations' like 30C, etc refer to the amount of dilution of a treatment. 30C means a dilution of one to 100 to the power of 30. At that level, it's extremely unlikely to find even a single molecule of the original substance in the final solution. Homeopathic pills are nothing more than sugar pills, or sometimes milk powder. As for water retaining a 'memory', there is not a bit of evidence that this is the case, nor is there any known mechanism for it happening. The chemistry of water is something we do understand quite well, and quantum mechanics doesn't even enter into it.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
And here is an article that lays out the case against homeopathy, except this one is actually sourced with published research, rather than the above article, which is 100% subjective:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
However, the idea behind homeopathy is that the less of the ingredient is more effective, so that 1C solution is then mixed with 10 parts water making a "2C" solution. This is repeated until the desired level of dilution is achieved. Standard homeopathic remedies use 30C.
The math here is a bit hard to imagine, but 30C is one part of active ingredient in a one with thirty zeroes after it parts water.
In order for there to be even ONE MOLECULE of caffeine in a 30C solution you would need a sphere of water nearly the radius of the Earth's orbit around the sun! This means that it's almost inconceivable that there's one molecule of active in ingredient in all the 30C homeopathic remedies in the entire world combined.
Now, as to the claims made in this article -- she put her water on a wasp sting and the swelling eventually went down and she stopped crying. She claims this was caused by the homeopathic medicine because it happened after. This is a post-hoc fallacy. She also rushed her home. Perhaps her house has magical healing properties! It's just as likely as water curing it.
What's more likely is this was both a placebo effect and simply the passage of time. Insect stings rarely hurt more than a few hours.
If homeopathy actually worked, you could do a study comparing its use on wasp stings compared to a placebo. Similar trials have been conducted on homeopathic remedies and the evidence is conclusive: Homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo.
There's no magic, just post-hoc rationalization.
For more info, check out http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/does-homeopathy-work
Shame on you Straight for publishing this deceptive article.
Diluting a substance in water many times doesn't produce a homeopathic remedy, despite what Joe Fulgham suggests (plus, he's actually describing how to dilute a 1X and 2X remedy (not 1C and 2C) and tells the concentration for a 30 C has 30 zeroes after the decimal point, but this is actually for a 30 X potency - a 30 C potency is actually corresponding to a concentration of 10 EXP -60 (60 digits after the decimal point!). It's obvious to anyone who knows a little chemistry that this is a much lower concentration that the limit given by Avogadro, so there is actually not even a molecule left, statistically speaking, in that solution.
So, chemistry cannot explain how homeopathic remedies work, and conventional medicine has to rely on the "placebo" effect to explain its results. But this is inaccurate.
Fractals, the theory of chaos, the research done on water (see books like "The Memory of Water"), and other current research in physics are giving us the models to begin to understand homeopathic dilutions.
To make a homeopathic remedy, as I started to say earlier, one does need to do a series of dilutions, but with each dilution comes a series of "succussions" or hard shaking of the water, otherwise, in the end, you simply get a diluted product of the initial compound, not a homeopathic remedy. Why is the shaking so important to give the remedies their healing properties? We theorize that the water is "impregnated" with energetic properties from the initial diluted substance and that which each new dilution, this energy is increased, while the concentration decreases. This is a challenging concept to accept, but the future should be able to tell us more about this phenomenon.
Second, the use of homeopathic remedies, when prescribed "homeopathically", must be individualized for each case treated. This means that if we see 10 people with viral hepatitis, we may see 10 different cases of symptoms, and we may need to prescribe 10 different remedies, one corresponding to each specific symptom picture, and all have the potential to cure each case.
Because of this need to individualize the use of a remedy, research on homeopathy has failed to show its potential. The approach to testing the remedies is flawed. You cannot test homeopathic remedies the same way you test a new drug: we know in advance that the selected remedy is not going to help all the patients, only those who match the symptom picture known for that remedy (that's why it's called "homeopathy": "like cures like"; symptom pictures of patients must be matched to those of the remedies).
One possible exception to this rule might be first aid prescribing, when you don't have to individualize the case as often as for illnesses and chronic diseases to help a patient: things evolve so rapidly (as opposed to a chronic disease case) and the prescription is given early, before an individual "picture" has had time to develop, so the odds work in your favour that the remedy will work, if you do not delay the administration of the remedy. Of course, COMMON SENSE, once again, dictates that even if a remedy might, or will, help the patient, mechanical injuries must be attended to (set a bone and put on a cast, stop a bleeding gash and protect from infection, etc...). So, conventional medicine must be used concurrently.
Ideally, alternative medicine should become part of full health care, what we sometimes call "Integrative Medicine". Educate yourself to learn how to best use both types of medicine together, for the best results for the patients. Don't just dismiss things as quackery just because you do not understand them... yet!
I believe the succussions refer specifically to 10 back and forth motions in each directional axis. Why 10? Would 9 work? 10 seems quite arbitrary. Why three directions? Why would a single bout of shaking not confer the memory? Why do the preparations not also require rotational succussions? Through what mechanism does this shaking pass chemical memory to water?
Any quantity of water will contain a huge number of impurities - why does it not retain a memory of flaked skin that lands in it? These impurities would be present before and after each round of succussion, so they would be subject to the same process of 'memorification'.
Also, I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for the principle of 'like cures like'. It is my understanding that this is simply an assertion made with no reason or evidence.
I try to have an open mind about these kinds of things, but I find the evidence to be completely unsatisfactory. At a certain point I must conclude that any perceived efficacy must be due to placebo effect or regression to the mean.
BTW, the World Health Organization states that homeopathy is the most widely used system of medicine next to the conventional.
http://www.alleghanyregional.com/healthcontent.asp?page=/choice/demonstr...
Wide use of homeopathy is a complete non-sequitar. Especially seeing as how "conventional medicine" is defined as "all medical treatments that have been proven to work". Anything that is 'next to' conventional medicine is to be taken with a grain of salt. Which... really, is all homeopathy is anyhow.
And congratulations (?) to those who have read the article and subsequent positive reception: if you classified this material concerning homeopathy under any heading other than those just listed then “You are lost” (see emails above for all words in scare quotes, as supplied courtesy of your local BC skeptics).
How does it feel to have interacted with some really scientific individuals who are qualified to call down shame on you, and to determine that ”˜you are lost’? Does any of this remind you of other events that you or your grandparents or great grandparents may have had the misfortune to suffer, far away and long ago? Or simply 'far away' if you or they have had the misfortune to have had to flee a country where people who call shame down on others also have the power to make laws to 'clarify' just how lost and shameful you are supposed to be?
I will comment on some of Jesse Brydle's content. The site providing cases of homeopathy being dangerous is not evidence that homeopathy is dangerous in itself but simply ineffective in those instances, and the conditions were directly responsible for injury, death. Certainly, many of those cases should have taken other measures. So the danger, as I understand you to mean it, is that people choosing homeopathy over the other methods will be duped and the condition will inevitably worsen and endanger them. So there are some cases for that, and there are cases where homeopathy has been the only help. So what to do?
And if we will point out the dangers of homeopathy, let's also look to what is being recognized not only by the public, but the regulatory bodies in medicine and Universities conducting test regarding both the efficacy and dangers of pharmaceuticals. So not only is there a strike against Big Pharma in regard to being ineffective in some cases, but the medicine itself has been proven injurious and fatal. This is something we cannot say about homeopathy (because it's placebo, you might feel - sure - you can take any position you feel is right).
I would direct some to the Canadian Centre For Policy Alternatives website.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca
It isn't online yet, but in the June 2009 issue an article by Helke Ferrie discusses the many lawsuits that Big Pharma is dealing with. Regarding safety I can quote: "The Canadian Medical Association reported that at least 23,000 people in Canada die every year from properly prescribed drugs . . ." - note 'properly' - "Drug related injuries and deaths reached record levels in the first 3 months of 2008: about 5000 deaths and over 21,000 injuries were recorded in the U.S." This number is estimated to be higher as the US FDA claims that only 10% of cases are reported.
And the article goes on and on. Quite remarkable actually. And this needs to be pointed to, and good going for the established bodies for being honest and willing to take a drastic reassessment regarding the direction of western or science based medicine. (I don't want to really get into this term "Science", as any one of can certainly know scientifically that we hear a sentence in the mind's ear, can speak it aloud, yet offer no real evidence of how this is possible - not mechanically - but on the basis of Awareness itself - of which there is no evidence for other than we all sit around with a sense of "I am here" within - I'll leave it at that.)
On a more personal note: who among us cannot stand to root out the biases that alter our seeing for what is simply there, homeopaths, medical doctors, etc. We'd all benefit from taking our uncollected heads out of our collective arse most of the time. So it is not an argument about who is in the position of right as if automatic credit can be given.
I had to move on from the advice of my doctors when I was not helped by the latest research in digestive diseases. In my case, turns out homeopathy, dietary changes, yoga have provided me health that quite simply baffles the specialists I saw in the past who guaranteed I'd be down one colon. I know this. Those who witnessed this know this. What's not scientific about this exactly? Because it's not repeatable in testing? I'm not a statistic, but a living individual, and while all mankind shares all these similarities, it is the slight differences rendering one unique that is most telling, most substantial for it's inexplicable nature - for what are we to do with that which does not fit the pattern? It does not render it non-existent - for there it is. And how are we are aware of what we do not know? And neither the homeopathic paradigm or the medical science paradigm can have any claim as to have rendered all that is inexplicable explained by a concept that communicates consistency.
One last note: what's the deal regarding attacking irresponsible journalism? It was an article designed to communicate the views of that community, not blow the lid wide open on everything about anything. Sonya McLeod presents a concise and well communicated introduction to those interested in homeopathy. Perhaps the next time someone writes about gay-rights, or city planning we should be up in arms about how biased and irresponsible the journalism was because someone actually had a point of view. Get real.
S. Chopra. Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of A Health Canada Whistleblower, Kos, 2009
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service: www.nutirteam.com
Drug recalls, interactions: Public Citizen's Worst Pills - Best Pills News. www.worstpills.org
On antidepressants: www.greenspiration.org, drug-induced suicides and mass murders www.drugawareness.org and www.ssristories.com
For the chronically uninformed, M. Ennis, a pharmaceutical researcher in Ireland, has demonstrated biological activity from high dilution solutions in which all molecules of the original stimulant were diluted away and yes, the effects were still observed (Inflammation Research vol 53, p181). This experiment has been repeated and confirmed in numerous repetitions. Nonsense that Homeopathy was just "placebo" effect was convincingly refuted in a recent Journal of Clinical Epidemiology article - the "placebo" rationalization does remain a rather funny example of Homeopathy critics begrudingly acknowledging its curative effect but then attempting to explain it away in terms of their crippled "scientific" reductionism.
And, last but not least, we still see totally uninformed "sceptics" attempting to tell us that Homeopathy is dangerous. It is actually quite dangerous to the pharmaceutical industry and their FDA approved (like Vioxx!!) side effect ridden nostrums which continue to kill people despite all that "science" behind them. People catch on rather fast as to what is really "dangerous" and what is not.
Forthcoming medical reforms will, hopefully, eliminate the one sided obstructionist viewpoints of special interests as Homeopathy and other Complementary and Alternative medicine systems rise to the forefront of modern medicine.
"So the danger, as I understand you to mean it, is that people choosing homeopathy over the other methods will be duped and the condition will inevitably worsen and endanger them. So there are some cases for that, and there are cases where homeopathy has been the only help. So what to do?"
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Homeopathy cannot directly cause harm to anyone, as it has a completely null effect. The harm comes from forgoing proven treatments of serious conditions in favour of unproven 'alternative' treatments. At best, the harm is wasted money. At worst it can result in death from the untreated condition. Here is an example of such a case, where a baby girl died a horrible and painful death that could have been easily prevented with conventional medicine. http://bit.ly/1a9bRe
You say there are cases where homeopathy has been the only help. I think you're reaching a bit with that statement. A single anecdote proves nothing. And many accumulated anecdotes don't count either - there are many possible inaccuracies that can sneak in, namely that successes get reported and passed on far more than failures. Only a properly controlled clinical test can determine if homeopathy actually has any positive effect. This has not been done.
Consider that your average cold symptoms last 2-3 days. Day one you start to feel a little under the weather, day two you feel awful, so you go to your local natural remedy supplier and get some homeopathic treatment. On day three your symptoms start to improve, and the next day you're back to normal. It is human nature to search for a cause in such cases, and very often the person will credit homeopathy as having helped them, when in fact they very well may have gotten better all on their own. This is the reason controlled trials are so important.
and this in the Vancouver Sun: http://bit.ly/2rEjN
Neither of those stories has any mention of homeopathy though. Is the last sentence in your comment meant to be part of the quote, or are those your own words?
It is a fallacy to claim that problems in conventional medicine prove the efficacy of alternative treatments. The faulty logic need not be pointed out, yet that very claim is often made in support of treatments like homeopathy.
No one is claiming conventional medicine is without fault or flaw. When used improperly it carries severe risks, and even when used properly can be dangerous. It is the very fact that these medicines are efficacious that makes such side effects possible.
Meanwhile, I have seen a demonstration of an 80 year old man swallowing an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills - 32 tablets in total - and remaining alert and awake for hours, well into the night. The bottle warned not to exceed 4 pills at a time, and to call poison control if more were accidentally ingested. The placebo effect is perfectly capable of reducing subjective pain, causing drowsiness, etc. but it cannot replicate the effects of real drugs.
I can't find anything about homeopathy preventing Leptosperosis in Cuba in 2008. Do you have a link? It would be very very difficult to prove that homeopathy actually prevented any kind of outbreak. All you can show is that no outbreak occurred. By that logic, I could say the can of Coke I drank last week prevented me from catching Swine Flu this week because I don't currently have Swine Flu. That would be a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy. If they have another means of proof I'd be interested to see a link to the study.
You speak of the 'yoke of the international pharmaceutical juggernaut' as if homeopathy is widely prevented from being used in most countries. I think you'll find you're sorely mistaken there. Homeopathy has extremely wide usage across the world, particularly in Europe, and more so all the time in North America. I can find homeopathic remedies in any pharmacy in my city. The only way homeopathy might be restricted is by agencies like the FDA which require treatments be scientifically proven to work before specific health claims can be advertised. Again, homeopathy simply has not met any reasonable standard of evidence.
Other proponents have been claiming homeopathy's wide usage as evidence of its effectiveness. You can't have it both ways.
Darlene, you say "There is medical research that supports statistics that homeopathy works. A person needs an open mind to find it." Yes, and the emperor is wearing the most beautiful silk garments which are visible only to the most enlightened. The proponents of homeopathy in this thread keep assuring me that evidence exists, yet not a single link has been provided to an unbiased, properly controlled, peer reviewed source. Where is this evidence? Calling me closed minded is not going to cut it.
The Cochrane Collaboration is a volunteer group dedicated to analyzing existing scientific research and compiling meta-analyses to determine the overall findings of certain treatments. They are considered unbiased and accurate in professional circles. Here are their findings on homeopathy:
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003803.html
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000353.html
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005648.html
Open minded does not mean you believe anything you see or hear. Open minded means you're willing to consider any evidence presented, and to align yourself with the most probable conclusion given by the best available evidence. By all means, I'm 100% open to your evidence, as long as it is of high quality (not anecdotal, not funded and reviewed only by practitioners). Don't tell me to go searching for it myself - I've done that and found nothing. I've given plenty of links to support my claims in this debate. Please, it's only reasonable to ask you to provide your own.
http://www.1023.org.uk/the-1023-overdose-event.php