My take on "Homeopathy: The Alternative Medicine Used By Millions"

The Huffington Post posted this seemingly even handed article about Homeopathy on 27 September 2017  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/09/27/homeopathy-the-alternative-medicine-used-by-millions_a_23224475

It sadly is an example of "balance" that softens the actual facts about Homeopathy, Homepaths and their patients.  I have purposely ignored logical inconsistencies to focus on the accommodations made by a reporter. 

That Homeopaths are unregulated dispensers of sugar pills, alcohol solutions and other substances that contain no medicinally effective ingredients is appalling.  Calling this practice "medicine" is an affront to medicine. Calling their ridiculously diluted substances "remedies" is an illogical dodge. That the practice has existed for 250 years and even proponents cannot demonstrate how their product works is ridiculous. 

I got very angry.  The crossout and red are mine.  

Steve. 

Homeopathy: The Alternative Medicine Used By Millions

 27/09/2017 1:39 AM AEST | Updated 27/09/2017 1:39 AM AEST

·          

·          

·          

·          

·          

·         Natasha HindeLifestyle Writer at The Huffington Post UK

Millions of people use homeopathy around the world, despite it being advised against by various medical and science bodies.

Most recently, the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) issued a damning report on the so-called benefits of homeopathy.

The council said claims for homeopathy are “implausible” and “inconsistent with established scientific concepts”, warning that promoting homeopathy may pose harm to patients who delay medical treatment in favour of an alternative cure.

It has since called for greater regulation of homeopathic products.

What is homeopathy?

Homeopathy is an alternative form of medicine unproven practice, that is not medicine, used to treat both acute and chronic conditions - Homeopathic treatments, Homeopaths call them "remedies" can be given as pills, capsules or tinctures (liquid extracts made from herbs, animal parts, bodily excretions, minerals, poisons, venom, or even starlight.). 

It is based on a series of pre-scientific, implausible ideas developed in the 1790s by a 

German doctor called Samuel Hahnemann. One of the utterly incorrect main ideas is 

that ‘like cures like’, so any substance which could produce symptoms in a healthy person 

could cure similar symptoms in a person who is sick. 

For example, onions make your eyes water and your nose burn when you chop them. So, if you’re experiencing hay fever - where the symptoms are watering eyes and a burning nose - many homeopathy websites argue that a treatment made from onion could (in theory) relieve it. This is course, is patently ridiculous and proven false.

Another provably incorrect idea from Hahnemann is that highly diluted substances are 

better for treating ailments. Homeopaths and their subjects and proponents believed giving 

the smallest amount of medicine can prompt a better healing response in the body, with 

fewer risks of side effects.  This is false and ignores the century of testing and careful dose 

monitoring that medicine and science have shown to work.

To be seen to be fair, The British Homeopathic Association says: “The holistic nature of 

homeopathy means each person is treated as an unique individual and their body, mind, spirit and emotions are all considered in the management and prevention of disease. Taking all these factors into account, a homeopath will select the most appropriate medicine based on the individual’s specific symptoms and personal level of health to stimulate their own healing ability.”

That homeopaths treat patients with actual medical disorders and there is no legal regulation of homeopathic practitioners in the UK currently is a disgrace. They are not doctors, yet they are permitted to behave as therm.

What do people use homeopathy to treat?

According to the NHS, homeopathy is used for an extremely wide range of health conditions. Some of the most common conditions include: asthma, ear infections, hay fever, mental health conditions, allergies, dermatitis (an allergic skin condition), arthritis and high blood pressure.

What evidence is there to suggest it works?

There’s no credible evidence surrounding supporting homeopathic treatments and whether they work. EASAC said homeopathy most likely causes a “placebo effect” in individuals - where the person believes they feel better because of their trust in the treatment rather than the treatment itself.

The NHS Choices website says “there is no good quality evidence that homeopathy is an effective treatment for these or any other health conditions”. Despite this, there are two NHS hospitals which provide homeopathy and some GP practices also offer it.

Meanwhile the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which advises the NHS, has issued advice on the use of homeopathy in three areas. It does not recommend using homeopathy to treat otitis media with effusion (OME) or for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men. It also said women should be advised against using homeopathy for induction of labour.

Cristal Sumner, chief executive of British Homeopathic Association (BHA), told HuffPost UK the EASAC findings are “little more than a rehash of previously published negative studies and reports, carefully selected from the wider body of homeopathic research to exclude any quality evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy”.

BHA said there’s a growing body of published research showing that homeopathy has a positive effect. One study from 2005 reported that 70% of 6,544 patients with a wide range of chronic conditions reported positive health changes following homeopathic intervention.

 This was however, an observational study, but is based solely on “how the participants felt”, rather than actual outcomes.

What does the report mean for the future of homeopathy?

EASAC has called for regulatory requirements to ensure all products for human and veterinary medicine are based on verifiable and objective scientific evidence. It said in the absence of evidence backing up health claims, a product should not be approved for wider use.

The council concluded that advertising and marketing for these products and services should be accurate and clear. In short, they should not be making any bold claims without the evidence to back it up.

An adjustment of Miranda's tantrum about Equal Marriage.

A rant bout Miranda Devine's latest post on Marriage Equality.

All the red bits are mine.  I was VERY angry. 

 To marriage ‘equality’ militants: Take our olive branch and shove it

For defenders of traditional marriage, the plebiscite was a significant concession and a risk they didn’t need to take. No, it was a divisive diversion in a failed attempt to send public opinion away from how bad Tony Abbott was.

But if the other side doesn’t want to come half way, then so be it. Take our olive branch and shove it where the sun don’t shine. First tantrum, and only in paragraph two.

There goes any chance of same-sex marriage being made law (without reversing the parliamentary enforced current status, by Parliamentary vote, which would be cheap, quick and easy.) with the blessing of the entire nation, (ooh, a red herring! Recent polls show that 149 of 150 Lower House electorates have a majority of voters who support equal marriage.) of fence-sitters embracing it, and of the losers (hint: that would be your side Miranda) accepting the verdict with good grace. (We’ll see, but I’m not hopeful. Abortion laws anyone?)
Attitudes will harden. Even if marriage “equality” (air quotes in print, indicating it isn’t equality, it’s “Taking err merredges!!”) activists win in parliament they won’t win. Everyone will know the outcome was rigged, (Conspiracy!!! Off the deep end already!) and that the change merchants didn’t trust the Australian public to legitimise this radical (reversal of previous Parliamentary decision) change to our foundational social institution. 

(Since 1998, Religious Institutions have not accounted for more than 50% of Marriages and last census only accounted for 25%.)

We will know that victory was only achieved through lies and intimidation. Defenders of traditional marriage (MAN THE BARRICADES!) are not bigots or hostile to homosexual relationships. (Funny, that’s how they come across) Yet they are being treated as “deplorables”, as Hillary Clinton would say, non-persons, irrelevant, disposable, hateful. (pretty good description) Anything can be said or done to them in the name of “equal love”. (Aww, people are saying nasty things about us. Get over yourselves, try to recall what the LGBTQI community has been called in the last 50 years or so.)

**Picture omitted for decency.**
Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby. (Pic: Kym Smith)

“I never thought I would be meeting secretly in this country in my lifetime,” (What, like the KKK or The Christian Defence League?) says Lyle Shelton, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby. “It’s not the Australia I grew up in or the Australia I want for my children.” (No Lyle, that’s because you grew up in a cloistered, cult like version of the Christian Church devised by your Father and you think that is ‘Australia’)

Shelton says his receptionist at ACL’s Canberra offices is regularly distressed by abusive phone calls. Uninvited visitors have intimidated staff. (I wonder if the authorities have ever been called?) ACL now has to lock its doors.

It is true that the marriage debate has unleashed hatred from intolerant authoritarians. But the victims are not loved-up LGBTIQ folk. (Really? The victimised are NOT the victims? What Bizarro World do you live in Miranda?)

They are gentle Christians and other defenders of traditional marriage who have been vilified for daring to hold a (bigoted, hateful, suppressive) contrary view. Those courageous enough to raise a head above the parapet are brutally made examples of. (By pointing and laughing mostly. Oh, and by pointing out that they are trying to keep a portion of the population LESS THAN EQUAL.)

It’s the social form (? The 2016 equivalent of Godwinning the argument) of warning off perfected by ISIS when they publicly behead people or lower them in cages into swimming pools or stage any number of elaborate tortures as a lesson to others who might dare even think of being disobedient.
Social death (or less impact on government policy) awaits those who defy the fashionable position on marriage.

For example, Christians in northwest Sydney who set up a group called “Children’s Future” were named and shamed in a vicious article in the Sydney Morning Herald last week because they letterboxed pamphlets which linked the same-sex marriage campaign to “Safe Schools”. (Of course they were, because “safe schools” is about bullies, not about marriage equality. They are proposing a slippery slope where there isn’t one.) Since Roz Ward, the architect of the radical sex education program, has explicitly made the same link, it’s hardly a giant leap.

But because some members of Children’s Future also are members of the Liberal party, and are Catholic, they were easy prey for factional rivals who sicced willing media onto them with gratuitous mentions of Opus Dei and George Pell.  (Remember, the vanishing Cardinal said this about Global Warming “Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.” His opinion is not really trustworthy.)

One shop owner, named just because his brother is involved, was in despair last week, forced into hiding after phone calls and strange visits to his shop. He is terrified his business will suffer as a result of the smear campaign.

Let that be a warning. (A warning to who, Miranda? Is this a threat?)

Last month, when the ACL and other Christian groups tried to hold a meeting at the Mercure Hotel at Sydney Airport to prepare for the plebiscite, their booking was cancelled after threats of violence to hotel staff. (No, the hotel did not report this.)

They regrouped last week but had to meet in secret. (See above, KKK?)

The same illiberal tactics were employed at The Occidental Hotel in May when protesters (Free speech is a double edged BASTARD sometimes isn’t it, Miranda?) shut down a talk in defence of traditional marriage by Joe de Bruyn and Cory Bernardi, whose Adelaide office had previously been trashed by gay activists.

Cory Bernardi's reception area at his Kent Town office in Adelaide was trashed by protesters in March. (Pic: Mark Brake)

**Not putting someone else's pic in here.

When Toowoomba GP David van Gend wrote a book, “Stealing from a Child”, making the case against same-sex marriage, the printing company refused to print it two days before its launch last week. (Writing a book doesn’t mean anyone SHOULD publish it for you.  Again, free speech biting you on the arse.)

Then there is the soft coercion, (soft coercion, my favourite kind. Corporation hold diversity training so they don’t get themselves sued because discrimination is illegal. Simple economics and the all-powerful invisible hand of the market doing that thing that you love.) through corporate “diversity” programs. Employees soon get the message that their careers will suffer if they don’t go with the flow. (Because the Corporation will argue ‘Mr Bloggs” knew that Corporation XYZ accepts diversity and ignored the training. *washes hands*) Take Mark Allaby, a senior executive of PricewaterhouseCoopers, who was forced to resign from the board of ACL after a word from PWC’s “diversity” officer.

Let that be a warning. (Another warning? Do I get the trebuchet after three?)

This Tuesday, Qantas employees will receive diversity training at Mascot when a spokesman from Marriage Equality addresses them. Will Qantas invite Shelton along to balance the discussion? No chance. (No. Good on them.)

In the end, intimidation of opponents, and Labor’s despicable portrayal of the plebiscite as a trigger for gay suicide, (after advice from lots of LGBTQI individuals and organisations) has had the desired effect. Public support and the will of politicians to support the public vote is waning.

The militant arm of Marriage Equality (they have great uniforms, very neatly pressed.) and Labor will be rewarded when, as seems likely, the plebiscite is killed off in the Senate this month. (That will be the Senate doing what the House should be doing, but are too beholden to their Right Wing homophobes and the National Party) Then Malcolm Turnbull has an existential crisis on his hands. (Poor Mal, if he just corrected the abomination of the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act, this would all blow away.)

Inevitably he will be faced with another bid for politicians to legislate same-sex marriage, without the plebiscite he promised at the election, (As if any promises made at the elections are believed by any voters after the horrors of the 2013 Abbott election ) and which is central to the Coalition agreement with the Nationals. (See?)

If the public will is subverted, the political bloodletting will be immediate and ugly. (But the public will is that equal marriage SHOULD be implemented.)
Instead of the country uniting around a publicly-sanctioned marriage revolution (Wow! Now it’s a revolution. No, we had one of those in Ballarat a long time ago.  It lasted a morning and when a few people got killed, it stopped.) in February, a politician-led change will never be seen as legitimate. (if a politician-led change won't be seen as legitimate, why is the current politician-led amendment seen as legitimate? Do I smell hypocrisy and mabye a hint of "pants on fire?") It will be a Pyrrhic victory which sets the stage for ever more nasty culture wars. (Instigated by those "gentle Chrisitians" now meeting in secret, I suppose.)

(And finally, threat number three, I’m off to the Trebuchet.)

All of this is because a minority of the population (I'm looking at you Miranda, Mal, Barnaby, Lyle and your ever decreasing mates) who are too self important to see that there are a significant proportion of the population who do not have the same rights as you and who are they willing to ignore that AND have the utmost GALL to blame the opressed.  

The awful truth is that Miranda and her "marriage defenders" want rights for themselves and want to keep them from others and see this equalisation as an attack, rather than as equalisation.  It makes me very sad and very angry.

Sooky, sooky homeopaths

After the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) fired all of the barrels of their not insignificant scientific armoury at the 16^th Century sugar pills and potions prepared by homeopaths, the logic-dodgers at Homeopathy Plus decided that they would have a darnedgood sook about it.

 

“There were no qualified homeopaths on the panel.” 

 

Off to a lousy start! To imagine that you need to be a ‘qualified’ homeopath to determine the quality of evidence is to equate having to have a ‘qualified’ psychic to test talking to the dead.  The review of studies does not require a party whose studies are being examined, in fact if one was involved there could be a resultant conflict of interest or even a bias that might affect the outcome.

 

So, scratch that from the argument as sour grapes.  Too bad.

 

Then Homeopathy Plus ventures straight into the resort of the woo and nonsense peddlers from almost all pseudo-scientists, the ‘special pleading’. “that homeopathy is practised by very different principles to those of conventional medicine.” Well, how about that. Homeopathy doesn't work via the same principles as ‘conventional medicine’ or as science calls it, ‘medicine’.  They wanted the NHMRC to focus on ‘principles and clinical practice’ instead of double blinded random clinical tests.  What they mean by this is “we’ll show you a bunch of stuff we’ve done with tales from our clients and our ‘specialist’ that make homeopathy shine like a beacon in the dark.” rather than the actual evidence that shows it doesn’t work any better than a sugar pill.  No surprise there because a great proportion of homeopathy is a sugar pill.  

 

Scratch that as “we’re special, you don’t understand us.” 

 

Next they make another attempt to show that homeopathy is special again.  This time by condescendingly pointing out that the NHMRC need to be shown how to understand how to see homeopathy’s effectiveness. “the AHA has recommended the NHMRC take “a more comprehensive approach  so that the evidence for its effectiveness is more easily understood and studied”  A really backhanded slap to the experts at the NHMRC.  They go on to indicate that a lack of this understanding is “This alone has had a negative impact on the NHMRC findings”. Right, that’s all sorted then. 

 

Scratched as more ‘special pleading with a dose of insult.”

 

Homeopathy Plus then calls for the reinforcements from the Australian Traditional Medicine Society (ATMS)  The ATMS is an association of almost every type of pseudo medicine that you can imagine.  If you have the time, click on all of these and see how many contradict the methodologies of any or all of the others. 

 

Acupuncture                                         Counselling                     Reflexognosy 

Aromatherapy                                      Homoeopathy                 Reflexology 

Ayurvedic Medicine                            Hypnotherapy                 RemedialMassage 
Bowen                                                   Kinesiology                     RemedialTherapies

Chinese Herbal Medicine                 MyofascialRelease       Rolfing 

Chinese Massage                               Naturopathy                   Shiatsu 

Chiropractic                                          Nutrition                          Thai Massage 

Complete Decongestive Therapy    Osteopathy                     TibetanMedicine 

Western Herbal Medicine

 

The ATMS reverses the burden of proof, another crappy arguing method used by cranks. “has no compelling evidence of a lack of effectiveness with homeopathy, just a lack of high quality studies” They then think that someone else should prove their nonsense should be tested by anybody except those people who sell it.  Isn’t that just what happened? All the existing decent trials were examined and no sound results were found.  Now they want MORE studies after 250 years, if it hasn’t shown results, my guess is it won’t ever.  And if they want to tout homeopathy they should show its effectiveness before they sell any more. 

 

Scratched.  The burden of proof lies with the claimant or proponent, not anyone else.

 

The “NHMRC exclusion of homeopathic prophylactic studies” The NHMRC wanted proof that homeopathy actually works when applied as described.

 

Scratched.  They really love special pleading. "They won’t listen to our poorly monitored and non blinded ‘tests’"

 

Finally, we have “ooo, it was expensive and took three years”  You would think that Homeopathy Plus would be really pleased that experts whose approval they crave took three years to fund and execute a comprehensive study into the effects of homeopathy.  That is exactly the very thing they have called for in this tantrum.  I believe that no study, however extensive, comprehensive or expensive would ever satisy Homeopathy Plus or the ATMS until it showed that magic shaken water, acupuncture, naturopathy, ayurvedic and all the other nonsense all worked. 

 

Scratched.  We all know that’s NEVER gonna happen.

Homeopathy "Reporting"

This is the first time I have been driven to a post. No, not by an automobile, by bloody fool mindedness. I set my Google News to have Homeopathy section which I'm fairly certain I set just to annoy myself. This piece of Homeopathy reporting appeared in The Guardian's Liberty Voice on 6 April 2014. I was unable to stop myself writing way too many words about this appalling piece of puffery. 

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/allergies-and-use-of-homeopathy/

Sadly it is not reporting at all, merely a pro-Homeopathy sales pitch that is loaded with logical fallacies and flat out assertions which, had I been the reporter would have questioned or at least, pointed out. I will do my best at pointing them out here. Beware, I may snark or rant because Homeopathy is unproven, magical wishing 'medicine'.  If I remove all of the total nonsense that is in this 'article' all that is left are two facts:

1) that if you want effective treatment for allergies, go see a Doctor of Medicine and they may prescribe actual medicine that may let you cope with the symptoms. 

2) Official medicine does not recognize homeopathy as a useful and effective method of disease treatment

Those are the two recommendations I can live with. As for the rest, read it and giggle. 

The black text is the original article, the blue, my comments. 

Allergies and Use of Homeopathy

Modern medicine is rapidly evolving in many areas, 

Yes it is but this is an example of the Red Herring fallacy, The fact that modern medicine is evolving has nothing to do with homeopathy which is based on hypotheses that are over 250 years old and have never been shown to work better than a placebo.

however, more and more people are deciding for the use of homeopathy to fight against allergies. 

This is the fallacy of popularity. People using any method or product does not demonstrate that it actually works.  

Homeopathy uses medicines that are adapted to the individual and tries to capture an overall health status of a person, not just the symptoms. 

Wow that's really impressive. 

Medicine: "a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease." 
I suppose you can call a homeopathic preparation medicine based on that definition, but a sugar pill or water drops that contain no discernible other constituents doesn't meet my criteria for medicine.  "adapted to the individual and tries to capture an overall health status of a person" Sounds really useful, Somehow a homeopath can specially adapt a medicine to you. How a homeopathic 'remedy' is adapted to an individual is through a few questions asked by the Homeopath and their imagination. No two Homeopaths will administer the same medicine to the same person suffering the same symptoms. The 'overall health status ... not just the symptoms" is another go at the red herring fallacy. It proposes that the homeopath does things doctors don't do. One of Homeopathy's main tenets is that 'remedies' are based upon the symptoms that they cause. A doctor will ask you questions about your health, fitness, diet and the symptoms. If they do not, change doctors. 

Homeopath must consider the complexity of the sick person’s symptoms and compare them with similar symptoms,

Making the homeopath sound like a mystic by 'considering the complexity' is just subterfuge. The question I would pose is 'What similar symptoms?' and "What do they have to do with the patients actual symptoms?" Evaluation of a patients symptoms is exactly what a doctor does, except a doctor has been trained at Medical School and anyone can set up a practice and call themselves a Homeopath.  

which could be caused by an individual substance in larger quantities.

Could the individual substance in larger quantities be poisoning then? This is a subtle reference to Homeopathic theory which nonsensically presumes that symptom you are suffering that could be caused by a substance (onions or poison ivy) can be cured by administering minute (none) amounts of the same substance. 

Although many believe that allergies are mostly a problem of modern time, mankind has already faced them in the old civilizations like Egyptian.  There are numerous historical records that talk about allergy to pollen, specific food and animal products. 

The assertion that 'many believe' neither demonstrates or proves that their is any evidence that anyone believes allergies are 'modern' This is another fallacy, the appeal to ancient wisdom. It is a very poor appeal because it only states that mankind has has the problem of allergies for a long time.

Some studies argue that the number of allergies is increasing due to environmental pollution, too stressful life and poorer quality of food and air. 

"Some studies" If you are going to claim that some studies 'argue', not 'show' the number of allergies is increasing, more than the claim is necessary, a citation should be include otherwise this is another simple assertion. Saying something is so without any evidence is neither a valid argument or evidence. 

40 percent of the population has the possibility of an allergic reaction to a substance that is otherwise harmless. 

Very vague numbers. 40% have the 'possibility' of a reaction? This is near to meaningless. A reaction to something shows that it is NOT harmless, it shows it causes allergic reaction. 

Antihistamines and corticosteroids are effective drugs, but especially in the long-term use they have unpleasant side effects. The advantage of treating allergies with homeopathic medicines is the absence of side effects, which is particularly important for most vulnerable groups (children, elderly, pregnant women, athletes, nursing mothers). 

Hooray! There is effective treatment for allergies! Antihistamines and corticosteroids. Thank a homeop... Oh, actual medicine. Not developed or administered by homeopaths. 

"Unpleasant side effects." All medicine which has an effect, has side effects. There are NO exceptions to this. Claiming that Homeopathic medicines have no side effect demonstrates that they have no effect. 

Homeopathic treatment of allergies is already recommended in the preventive phase; otherwise the use of powerful pharmaceutical drugs may be necessary. 

If Homeopathic treatment is recommended in the preventative phase, does this mean you should see a Homeopath BEFORE you have any symptoms?  Who recommends homeopathy in this case would be nice to know too.  Sadly there are no sources included. This time 'powerful pharmaceutical drugs' is sounding scary and only to be used when necessary. These are just more assertions not backed up with any references. 

If there is no other option, homeopathy can also be used in the phase of simultaneous treatment with prescription. 

'Simultaneous treatment with prescription'.  This is what is known as 'Piggy backing'. It is not an uncommon ploy. When a patient is using both Homeopathy and actual medicine and improves, Homeopaths claim the success. It is shabby and unprofessional action. 

Homeopathic medicines are based on the assumption that the only effective medicine is the one that causes symptoms similar to the disease that should be treated.

Notice that Homeopathic medicines are only based on the assumption, not the actual evidence. 

Hay fever, caused by pollen is the most common health problem of people with tendencies to allergy. Typical symptoms of pollen allergy are red and watery eyes (conjunctivitis), sneezing, swollen mucous and nasal discharge. For the prevention or mitigation of hay fever, homeopaths recommend medicine which is a special blend of homeopathic allergens that cause allergy to pollen. This medicine is also appropriate when the first symptoms of hay fever occur.

Homeopaths recommend medicine which is a special blend of homeopathic allergens that cause allergy to pollen. This directly contradicts and earlier statement about symptoms caused by an individual substance. This is trying to have it both ways. It is also NOT 'adapted to the individual', but if you got this far, you've probably forgotten this.

An important supplement to treat allergies is also a preparation of black currant, which has anti-inflammatory activity and stimulates the immune system. Herbal preparation is made from the tip of black currant. The young shoots of this plant contain a lot of embryonic tissue which has an effect on the adrenal gland and stimulates the secretion of cortisone. Cortisone is beneficial in reducing inflammatory processes in the body, which includes allergic reactions such as hay fever, conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, hives and eczema.

Finally, this article seems to make a recommendation, but no, it carefully explained that a 'preparation' of black currant is an 'important supplement to treat allergies'. Notice that is not a 'treatment' for allergies, just an 'important supplement'.  This is because Homeopaths are not actually allowed to claim effective treatment. 

It is claimed that black currant shoots contain embryonic tissue and that that tissue has an effect on the adrenal gland so that the adrenal gland excretes cortisone. None of this is demonstrated, referenced or proven. The shoots may contain undifferentiated cells, but only seeds have embryos. The shoot of a plant is about as far from a seed as you can get and still be on the plant.

Homeopathy has a long history of successful allergies treatment and homeopaths have made important contributions to today’s understanding of allergies.

A list of these successes would be effective evidence. Naming the preparations that are used would be useful so you evaluate them, but no. 

Treatment with homeopathy can be used for many different types of allergies. 

Still no mention of which actual allergies Homeopathy can be 'used' for and again it is not allergies that can be cured or even alleviated, just 'used'. 

It can also be used in milder and severe disease conditions, but it cannot be used for diseases which already led to irreversible damage. 

Repeatedly stating an assertion without reference, evidence or even examples is not a useful argument. 

Official medicine does not recognize homeopathy as a useful and effective method of the disease treatment, but more and more individuals are choosing this type of treatment.

So, to finish, they reinforce Homeopathy's inclusion into the field of medicine by introducing the differentiator 'official' to medicine and fall back on the popular fallacy a final time.  Not a single Doctor of Medicine or reputable scientist on the planet would call Medicine "Official". 

Addendum: The morning after I posted this, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council released their draft report into Homeopathy.

My friend Dr Rachel Dunlop has a good post about it on her blog The Skeptics Book of Pooh Pooh. I also to forgot to link to HowDoesHomeopathyWork.com