Pharmaceutical Company Sponsored Chemist Leads Attack to Censor Homeopathy Research Study

A chemist funded by a pharmaceutical company head is attacking and attempting to censor a research study on the homeopathic treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The study is being done by professors and researchers at the University of Toronto in Canada. The chemist, Joe Schwarcz is funded to attack homeopathy by the head of a pharmaceutical company who also funds other anti homeopathy skeptic groups.

Heather Boon, Dean of the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Pharmacy, responded to the attack by saying, “The study comes after years of consultations and a pilot project that observed patient experiences using homeopathic remedies to treat ADHD. We found that over 60 per cent of the patients improved.”

According to the Toronto Star newspaper, the drug company funded chemist has organized a group of scientists to sign a letter that would censor and stop this research and any research into homeopathy. Homeopathy is the second largest form of medicine in the world and has a 200 year history of safety and efficacy.

The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry found that the total spending on ADHD is up to $266 billion a year. Sales of prescription drugs for ADHD treatment doubled between 2007 and 2012, going from $4 billion to $9 billion. Homeopathy offers a viable and inexpensive alternative and the University of Toronto study is a scientific validation of this.

4 Responses

  1. This link was left as a comment on the About Homeopathy entry

    I wanted to leave a link to a comment I submitted to the BMJ regarding the ADHD study “controversy” at the University of Toronto:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1234/rapid-responses

  2. Strange how these attackers say that there is no research to substantiate homeopathy, (even when there are some very good studies) yet they want to stop a research study when it starts to show positive results.

    Very strange behaviour that is not what a good scientist or a supporter of scientific research would do. Thanks for uncovering the money behind this despicable behaviour.

  3. I agree about the fact that this is a form of biased censorship and intimidation that has NO place in good scientific research. Remarkable that a chemist is involved with clinical pharmacology at all.

  4. Terrible!@ Censoring Scientific Research. I would say this action by Swartz is the lowest of the low.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: