WHO Lays the Smack Down on Homeopathy
August 22nd, 2009
|
| Share |
Finally, the World Health Organization has made a very clear statement on their position when it comes to homeopathy, and it seems they’ve chosen the correct one! The statement by the WHO was apparently prompted by a letter from the Voice of Young Science Network asking the WHO to “condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating TB, infant diarrhea, influenza, malaria and HIV.”
In a letter to the WHO in June, the medics from the UK and Africa said: “We are calling on the WHO to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating TB, infant diarrhoea, influenza, malaria and HIV.
“Homeopathy does not protect people from, or treat, these diseases.
“Those of us working with the most rural and impoverished people of the world already struggle to deliver the medical help that is needed.
“When homeopathy stands in place of effective treatment, lives are lost.”
Dr Robert Hagan is a researcher in biomolecular science at the University of St Andrews and a member of Voice of Young Science Network, which is part of the charity Sense About Science campaigning for “evidence-based” care.
He said: “We need governments around the world to recognise the dangers of promoting homeopathy for life-threatening illnesses.
“We hope that by raising awareness of the WHO’s position on homeopathy we will be supporting those people who are taking a stand against these potentially disastrous practices.”
Dr Mario Raviglione, director of the Stop TB department at the WHO, said: “Our evidence-based WHO TB treatment/management guidelines, as well as the International Standards of Tuberculosis Care do not recommend use of homeopathy.”
The doctors had also complained that homeopathy was being promoted as a treatment for diarrhoea in children.
But a spokesman for the WHO department of child and adolescent health and development said: “We have found no evidence to date that homeopathy would bring any benefit.
“Homeopathy does not focus on the treatment and prevention of dehydration – in total contradiction with the scientific basis and our recommendations for the management of diarrhoea.”
Well, it’s about damn time!
The World Health Organization is the medical branch of the UN and is responsible for promoting good science-based medicine around the world. One of the biggest concerns of the WHO has long been the conditions in third world countries, where local health authorities range from ineffective to non-existent. In many of these areas, quackery is a huge problem and dishonest practitioners and snake oil pushers will take the few pennies that the poorest can scrape together.
Areas like rural India have become infested with quacks and traveling scam artists. The combination of desperation and lack of education and well established medical systems can make such areas especially attractive to homeopaths. These scammers do not only defraud the poor, they also have undermined efforts to improve medical care by international groups like the WHO. The homeopathy movement has allied itself, in many circumstances, with movements like the anti-vaccine interests. The spread of superstition and false claims of dangers from modern science-based medicine has turned out to be one of the biggest hurdles that groups like the WHO face. Indeed, vaccine fears and claims of alternative methods of treatment have managed to set back progress in the worldwide effort to eradicate polio considerably.
Not surprisingly, there is a response from one of the liars in question:
However Paula Ross, chief executive of the Society of Homeopaths, said it was right to raise concerns about promotion of homeopathy as a cure for TB, malaria or HIV and Aids.
But she added: “This is just another poorly wrapped attempt to discredit homeopathy by Sense About Science.
“The irony is that in their efforts to promote evidence in medicine, they have failed to do their own homework.
“There is a strong and growing evidence base for homeopathy and most notably, this also includes childhood diarrhoea.”
The UK’s Faculty of Homeopathy added that there was also evidence homeopathy could help people with seasonal flu.
Dr Sara Eames, president of the faculty, said people should not be deprived of effective conventional medicines for serious disease.
But she added: “Millions die each year as those affected have no access to these drugs.
“It therefore seems reasonable to consider what beneficial role homeopathy could play. What is needed is further research and investment into homeopathy.”
So there is evidence? Well lets see it! (remember, just citing the existence of evidence or “studies” doesn’t cut it here. You actually have to name the names of the studies and not make vague statements that they’re out there.)
One thing that the WHO would probably not disagree with Eames on is that there is indeed a worldwide problem with getting the proper drugs and treatments to everyone who needs them. However, homeopathy offers no benefit, and can make this effort more difficult. Every dime spent on homeopathy is one that is not spent on good science-based medicine and even worse, those who are lead to believe there is anything to homeopathy may not seek out legitimate medicine, believing they are receiving effective treatment.
There may be some circumstances where using old standby treatments or traditional remedies may have some value. For example, traditionally the chemical quinine was used to treat malaria. Quinine is derived from the bark of the cinchona plant and was used for malaria treatment well into the 1960’s. Today it is no longer considered the best treatment for malaria and the WHO no longer recommends it as the primary treatment method if other drugs such as artemisinin are avaliable. However, it is still fairly effective in most cases and certainly better than nothing, so if you’re stuck in the badlands with malaria and quinine is all you have to treat it, you certainly should use it.
But this is not the case with homeopathy. Unlike other treatments which may be obsolete in much of the world, but still of some value if they are all that is avaliable, homeopathy is 100% useless. It has no redeeming qualities and can do no good. It can only make the efforts to save lives and bring better medical care more difficult. No remedy or treatment should ever be sanctioned in any way unless it is at least better than doing nothing.
(also, homeopathy isn’t even traditional or natural. It was invented circa 1800 by a German guy.)
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, History, Paranormal, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Homeopathy condemned by WHO, the chiropractic quacks being convicted for tax evasion, insurance fraud, and credit card scams. Looks like the wheels of justice and reason are slowly turning against these practices.
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 am
I can actually see how, if you defined the study carefully, you could manage to get a result where homeopathy is useful against diarrhoea. Not in stopping the disease, but in treating the symptoms. When you die from this, the actual cause of death is usually dehydration. So, a treatment which is basically water, as opposed to no treatment at all, would be more beneficial. One of the big problems with flu is also dehydration, so the same applies.
Of course, you’d have to make sure your study didn’t compare it to actual medical treatment.
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 am
Weirdly, very weirdly indeed, homeopathy might in fact help with childhood diarrhoea.
The treatment is not water, as above though. Homeopathic medicines are diluted in water, certainly. Down to where there are no active molecules at all, as we all know. But the method of application is that this liquid is then ensconced in a sugar pill. That’s the actual tablet that is taken, a sugar pill.
And what is the treatment for childhood diarrhoea? Oral Rehydration Therapy. Which is sugar and salt in water. Actually, what we’re doing with ORT is not just rehydrating, we’re also restoring the electrolyte balance with the sugar and the salt.
So giving someone a sugar pill is in fact part of the conventional, ORT treatment.
If we were to test ORT against homeopathy then ORT would win hands down. But homeopathy here, because it uses the sugar pill as its applicator (and thus nothing at all to do with homeopathy itself) would indeed be better than doing nothing.
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 am
Tim Worstall said:
“…and the very next day, thousands of homeopathic practitioners published blogs and wrote letters to the editor exalting in the endorsement of homeopethic treatment for serious childhood conditions by a prominent skeptics blog…”
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Stephen said:
A proper study would compare an equivalent volume of “regular” water. The idea of homeopathy is that the water is somehow energized or remembers the characteristics of what was diluted in it.
Similarly, if you were to use pills, you would want to use pills that were the same shape, same size and same composition (aside from active ingredient) for the control group. These days we use the term “sugar pill,” but most tablets are made of filler material like corn starch, gelatin and other intert ingredients. If you were doing a homeopathic study you’d want to use the same kind of pill for the control, minus the homeopathic water or whatever.
Anyway, I doubt homeopathy would really be that useful in terms of rehydration. Most homeopathic treatments I’ve seen don’t involve a tall glass of water, but rather the preparation is sold in tiny perfume bottles for $50 or something and you take a little bit like a legitimate medicine.
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Well, it seems as though everyone has elevated the “STUDY” as superiour to the results obtained with a real live human patient.
It gets curiouser.
Where are the “studies” showing the efficacy of chemotherapy, heart surgeries or radiation done on human patients.
For obvious ethical reasons, there aren’t any.
So then how does allopathy determine these treatments? BY THE EXACT SAME METHOD THE HOMEOPATHS USE, by the clinical reports, case studies and experience of the MD’s, surgeons and other well trained health professionals.
Some bit brained statisticians can go figure out how much of that is “placebo” and how much real, I’m sure the patients themselves don’t care.
Now what is this about calling the head of the Society of Homeopathy a liar? Seems like innuendo, ridicule and a lot of ANTI-scientific stuff here instead of some rational arguments and discussions – for example of the numerous research articles clearly showing that high dilution solutions can and do stimulate biological activity, yes, even after all the stimulant molecules are diluted away. It is the task of scientists, research scientists, to confirm and explain this, and that is exactly what they are attempting to do. See Ennis, Inflammation Research, vol 53, p181 among others.
So, if I understand this phenomena correctly, a bunch of self appointed censors, busily calling people “liars” or “quacks” have taken to attacking Homeopathy and other alternative medicine systems based on things as scanty and unscientific as their own 1930’s era ball and stick molecule visualizations, their personal sense of “outrage” that the whole thing is “impossible” or on their own studied anti-intellectualism and refusal to even bother to look for confirmatory studies and analysis.
The author of this blog post mentions that the WHO has advocated artemisinin for malaria, perhaps not even knowing that the Chinese used this (qing hao in Chinese) for HUNDREDS of years to treat malaria. Perhaps the author of this blog regards all of Chinese medicine as quack nonsense to be dismissed with contempt along with the “German” guy from 200 years ago?
I object. I object to innuendo, misrepresentation, ridicule of genuine scientists, MD’s, Homeopaths, researchers and other health professionals and to the anti-intellectualism which somehow attempts to substitute mass condemnation by the internet equivalent of a shouting mob for carefully conducted scientific observations, clinical reports, case reports and research which takes decades to complete and analyze. The anomalies which led to Barry Marshall’s Nobel prize winning discovery had been observed over a period of 40 or 50 years. Too bad there was no Internet then to permanently discredit ANY researcher who dared investigate them.
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Looks like Doc hit a nerve.
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
James Pannozzi said:
Sure there are! I can get you the cure rates versus doing nothing with no problem. Just give a more specific example. There are studies that have looked at chemo versus radiation versus both versus doing nothing. Studies on heart surgeries and so on.
These are first tested clinically on volenteer groups and before that tested in vitro or on animal subjects, of course.
James Pannozzi said:
Placebos don’t make you better, they only give the illusion of things being better and they are certainly not reliable! A placebo is a comforting lie.
James Pannozzi said:
Object all you want. I object to you defending fraud and lies.
James Pannozzi said:
Facts matter. Not inuendo or shouting mobs. Facts, as determined by valid scientific observation and study. Any genuine scientist or MD who buys into this crap needs to go back to school and take all the science 101 courses again.
James Pannozzi said:
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Marshall proved the link between bacteria and peptic ulcers. That was done by good scientific research. It has nothing to do with homeopathy
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
What is the difference between homeopathy and other traditional or nature-derived medicines or treatments?
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Miniglossary of “Alternative” Methods at Quackwatch gives a good overview of the various fields of so-called ‘alternative medicine’. That would be a good place to start.
Quote Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Nicely done, Gordon.
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 2:21 am
L337135 said:
Scientific evidence that it works, and adherence to other known science.
Homeopathy does neither.
/Michael
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 2:26 am
L337135 said:
quite a lot. Homeopathy is a fairly modern invention out of the early age of science and industry. The same erra that brought us such astounding successes as phrenology, mesmerism, running electric current through people and the like. It is essentially a survivor of that erra of science where all kinds of strange ideas were thrown at the wall to see what stuck.
Dr. Buzzo has several good articles on this site regarding homeopathy and what it is and why it ultimately is a complete farce as a medical treatment.
The “traditional” and/or “nature derived” treatments have a degree of validity but even there the way the get used in the modern world tends to ruin any value they may once have had. For example you can treat a headache or acheing back with willow bark tea or you can take an aspirin. The tea has a distinct problem of quality control. First how much active ingredient is actually in your tea? What pesticides or other negative things are you getting from the bark as well? How old is the sample? natural ingredients do not generally age well. For most natural methods fresh plants have more active ingredient. So in the end it comes down to do you want control of your dose of acetalsalacylic acid or not?
You can also treat heart conditions with foxglove or you can take digitalis which is derived from the plant. The problem again is variability of the dose when using the plant. And with the plant that can be very lethal since it can kill you if you overdose. All of the other problems with age of the plant, quality control, long term storage and viability remain true.
Folk medicine is all fine and good and there are some real very effective techniques buried in it. The problem is that for much of it there are better ways to achieve the same effect. And these ways have the advantage of repeatability and quality control.
The next problem with these nonstandard techniques is variability of the practicioners. In pretty much every case there isn’t a board overseeing their training and skill. If you read a book on folk medicine you can set yourself up as a ‘natural practitioner’ all on you own say so. So here you can have a person who has years of knowledge and knows when a folk type treatment would be effective and when to send the person to a doctor to see if it is more serious, or you might get someone who read a couple books or took a class on natural healing and is now selling their services. You can’t know which you are getting.
Last there is another element which all of these partake of. That is a certain degree of the placebo effect. The good traditional practitioners limit them selves to treating the soul/spirit and then send their patient to a doctor to be certain. You see this a lot more in third world countries. Here in the US entire industries have sprung up claiming that you don’t need doctors. Anyway by doing that split it helps the patients mental state which is something modern medicine has learned does have an impact on healing and recovery.
So the best use is to calm your own or anothers spirit so they can heal better with modern medical treatment. And to provide handy folk cures for getting into the poison ivy, or a bible bump, or any of a number of minor type ailments that mainly time and good sanitary care will actually help with.
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 2:27 am
L337135 said:
Homeopathy is not just “natural medicine” or “herbal” or “traditional”
That is what many people think it is, but it is actually based on diluting things until they are not even present in the final mixture. It’s a wacked out belief in magic water. Either use the search feature on this site or hit up something like Wikipedia to get the definition.
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 3:09 am
As others have said, some herbs do work, and in some cases they maybe work but not enough study has been done to prove it. Even profitable big pharmaceuticals like anti-depressents sometimes require large studies to show statistically significant results – however such studies are not done for natural herbel compounds which cannot be patented. It is encouraging, to see that the WHO takes a stand on Homeopathy, hopefully more focus can be put on researching traditional herbel remedies in a scientific way, even if they can’t be patented and profited from, instead of homeopathy.
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Speaking of homeopathy and such… let me point you Dara O’Briain, comedian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo
“Get in the fookin’ sack” is my new skeptic warcry, along with the Dunning-Kruger effect!
Other golden quotes:
“Well science knows it doesn’t everything or otherwise if’d stop!”.
“Just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you!”
” ‘Herbal medicine has been around for thousands of years’. Indeed it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became medicine! And the rest it just some nice bowl of soup and some potpourri, so know yourself out”.
The full show is still available on YouTube. Search for “Dara OBriain Talks Funny 2008 Part”. There he gives it to psychics as well.
/Michael
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 6:56 am
That show is absolutely hilarious. My favourite bit was about the Gilette Fusion Power Stealth.
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Josh said:
Sweet Isaac Newton’s dropping testicles… tell me about it. Advertising for men is downright insulting because I feel they actually expect me to fall for that kind of BS! Talk about insulting my ability to think.
/Michael
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Those of you who really are interested in rational discussion and scientific understanding of Homeopathy, (not “Gordon” obviously, whose comments were unworthy of response) should look to some of the following web sites for real information, from real scientsts:
For speculation and papers on water molecule clustering, Professor Emeritus Dr. Rustum Roy, author of a world famous textbook on crystalline chemistry, see his web site:
http://www.rustumroy.com/
He is very “controversial” but is fun to read and has the erudition to back up his opinions and ideas.
He claims to have refuted the “it’s just water” attacks against Homeopathy by stating that Diamond and Graphite have very different properties, one very hard, the other soft – but “it’s JUST CARBON”!! Roy correctly states that it is structure, not just composition, that determines properties.
For an EXCELLENT overview of current Homeopathy research by a genuine scientist, Dr. Iris Bell, MD, PhD,
see her presentation at a superb debate on Homeopathy held at UConn a while back. Actually, search out both the pro and the con – both sides have good arguments. Dr. Roy had a presentation at that one too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
A list of some of the peer reviewed scientific journals, many of them are non-Homeopathy journals for those of you whose bias prevents reading them, used by Bell can be found here:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173
Last but not least, HERE is a quote from a genuine scientist and Nobel prize winner, Dr. Brian Josephson, regarding Homeopathy:
Responding to an article in the New Scientist (October 18, 1997), he wrote:
“Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy: criticisms centered around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water’s structure.”
“Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.”
Perhaps “Gordon” feels that Dr. Josephson is engaging in fraud or in a lie? But the rest of you, probably not.
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Perhaps “Gordon” feels that Dr. Josephson is engaging in fraud or in a lie? But the rest of you, probably not.
If you were expecting us to go all goo-goo eyes just because a Nobel Prize laureate said it may be true, and that we’d immediately agree that homeopathy has any real effect, you are sorely mistaken.
You are attempting what is known as Appeal To Authority, which is a useless argument for many reasons. The essential one is that anyone in authority may be wrong. It’s not the title, award or past history that decides whether or not someone is right… but whether his claims are falsible, repeatable, and verifiable.
In this case, dr Josephson’s claims has been proven false… and here is the article that does that, published in Nature 2005.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15758995
This article strikes down dr Josephsons 1997 claim because water does not retain any structure. Within 50 femtoseconds… that is one 50 millionths of a billionth of a second, any structure water had is lost.
Josephson is not the first scientist, even among the reputable ones, that have gone down the wrong path. The most famous one in this area being Jacques Benveniste.
/Michael
Quote Comment
August 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
James Pannozzi said:
Oh god, not Rustum Roy again. Yeah, we all know there are different allotrope of the same elements. This guy is just waxing on about something totally irrelevant. This in no way applies to homeopathy.
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 11:04 am
>If you were expecting us to go all goo-goo eyes just because a Nobel Prize laureate said it may be true, and that we’d immediately agree that homeopathy has any real effect, you are sorely mistaken.
I’m not expecting anything of anyone, just stating my opinion. That’s all anyone else has in this blog….OPINION, nothing more.
>You are attempting what is known as Appeal To Authority, which is a useless argument for many reasons. The essential one is that anyone in authority may be wrong. It’s not the title, award or past history that decides whether or not someone is right… but whether his claims are falsible, repeatable, and verifiable.
Nope, I’m just pointing out the possibility of alternative viewpoints on Homeopathy, some of them optimistic.
>In this case, dr Josephson’s claims has been proven false… and here is the article that does that, published in Nature 2005.
No, his claims were NOT proven false. One of the problems of the anti-Homeopathist scientism-ists is that they automatically assume veracity for their position and automatically assume impossibility for the opposing position.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15758995
>This article strikes down dr Josephsons 1997 claim because water does not retain any structure. Within 50 femtoseconds… that is one 50 millionths of a billionth of a second, any structure water had is lost.
This is an argument typically used against water structure theories. It is quite specious as the following rough analogy will show. Do you deny that clouds exist because water molecules are condensing and evaporating in a time scale far smaller than the existence of the cloud? Of course not. It is the same with water structures.
In addition, recent research without adequate theoretical explanation has indicated a tendency for greater rather than less clustering as dilutions are increased – you are well aware of the 2001 Korean research reports, or would you like a cite?
The situation is sufficiently equivocal to require much more research before any definitive conclusion can be made.
>Josephson is not the first scientist, even among the reputable ones, that have gone down the wrong path. The most famous one in this area being Jacques Benveniste.
Your sweeping conclusions, both regarding the import of a single article in Nature, and regarding whether or not a Nobel prize winning scientist (oops appeal to authority!!!) has gone down the “wrong” path, are completely inappropriate. You would need far greater amounts of research to reach any conclusion at all.
In addition, your failure to even dare MENTION the Ennis experiments, which HAVE been repeated with the same results as she got, and which suggest interpretations quite the opposite of the Nature article, indicate, again, the necessity of more research and a theoretical breakthrough to reconcile the experimental results.
I must conclude that the peremptory dismissal of Homeopathy is premature, inappropriate and unscientific in the extreme.
I repeat that had such attacks been made against Barry Marshall’s research, it might have held up or even blocked his discovery. That unreasoning scepticism OF THE SAME KIND as has been used against Homeopathy was a hindrance to him can be seen from his final extraordinary action, after publishing research which was STILL being challenged, of EATING some of the bacteria himself and then demonstrating clear early signs of a pyloric ulcer which finally silenced the sceptics. Even at that, it was some YEARS before the medical community accepted the discovery and started altering the treatment methods – it did not happen overnight. THIS is the danger of premature, excessive and unreasoning scepticism as opposed to good solid rational scepticism which is a good thing.
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 11:37 am
James… homeopaths have had 200 years to prove their case in a consistent, repeatable manner. They have failed, miserably, every time. Once in a while someone will pop up and claim they have the proof… but as soon as proper scientific obeserving conditions are adhered, the claims evaporate and adds to the ever growing pile marked “FAILED”.
Now go bark up someone elses’s tree.
/Michael
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Michael Karnerfors said:
Exactly. Homeopathy has never stood up to testing and succeeded. The problem is non repeatability of results. Which pretty clearly puts its “successes” in the placebo effect category. Here is the thing. The human mind can have a tremendous ability to influence our own health. Sometimes merely thinking the treatment will help is what helps. Given that treatments can’t be successfully replicated any successes most likely fall completely in this category of the mind healing the body and not the treatment having any positive effect.
The impact of the mind on the body and health is poorly understood because it is so very subjective and hard to test. We know it happens, but we don’t know how it happens. And just as the mind can help heal the body it can do the opposite. If you believe that X will make you sick then you will get sick and experience symptoms from X even if there is no provable coloration. Ie I have a friend who was recovering from allergies. Some things this person would react to even when not aware of it in the environment. But other types of things like some cleaners would only be reacted to when visually seen by this person. If it was used in range of them but out of direct sight they wouldn’t react. But use it across the room with the airflow away from them but in visual range and they would get sick.
That was a very vivid example of the mind making the person sick.
Homeopathy is bad because it is one of the surviving failed paths of medical research from the 18th century. It has never stood up to actual testing of results and so is really and truly just quackery. The problem is that it is dressed up in very good sounding scientific language.
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Michael, it’s a blog, people post opinions, some opinions DISAGREE with yours. Get used to it.
And what’s this? NO MENTION of ENNIS, eh?
Understandable.
And now we’re on to a new mythology. THIS time it’s that the Homeopaths have had 200 years to prove their
ideas and that they’ve failed every time.
Really? You’ve actually viewed all of the research clearly showing Homeopathy successes, performance well above placebo effect, EVEN PRO HOMEOPATHY RESEARCH appearing in the well regarded Cochrane database??
And you DISCOUNT ALL of this?
The reader will note the constantly shifting context by the anti-Homeopathist. First it was that the thing was impossible because of some physics article. Just one observation from a prominent physicist challenged that idea. Then it might be that nothing has been proven. When positive results are shown clearly acknowledging the curative effects, it is disregarded and dismissed as “placebo”. When research disproving that, such as recently appeared in the Journal of Clincial Epidemiology is shown, there will be some other context shift.
In addition, the reader will note that the same “standards” of “evaluation” would fail even standard medicine, for which a British Journal of Medicine indicates that has 46% of its treatments to be of unknown effectiveness. A certain percentage were determined to be demonstrably harmful.
It’s fine to be sceptical of Homeopathy – that opinion is just fine with me, I was initially of the same opinion until I looked a little deeper. There are books out there by MD’s who were just as sceptical, just as incredulous but then tried it and eventually embraced it devotedly. It is the totality of the clinical and case experience and their reports, genuine MD’s and other medical professionals, that convinced me and by God they are not quacks, not liars nor frauds – many of them mainstream medical people.
And when you come right down to it, in my opinion, this bull**** about “evidence” based medicine is just a fiction designed to disparage alternative medicine because the actual practice of medicine is really based on the clinical observations, training, case studies and experience of the MD’s and Homeopaths who study and practice it on…get this, real live patients.
There is NO single thing that “refutes” Homeopathy and makes it go “away”. Sorry Michael but your opinions in opposition to it are still welcome and are still as good as my opinions in its favor. Just opinions.
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
James Pannozzi said:
It’s even broader than that. Not only would we need to dispense of modern medical theory to assume the efficacy of homeopathy, but everything else we know about physics and chemistry as well. Unfortunately for those supporting homeopathy many of those ideas are both foundational and very well established and while homeopathy can hide behind the placebo effect to claim its techniques have some clinical validity, there is no possible way that any explanations based on theories about water retaining some structure through “potentization” via “succussion” are valid. These phenomena, were they to exist, would be observable directly and would not have to be assumed indirectly from biological effects.
The impact of the existence of these effects (if they existed) would reach far beyond biochemistry and render almost all modern chemical theory invalid, however since there is absolutely no evidence at all that this is so, and modern chemistry is provably effective at explaining and controlling complex molecular systems we are forced to come to the conclusion that homeopathic theory is in grave error.
To put it in parallel terms should someone claim that some viral infection can only effect a Baptist, and not effect a Catholic, a Jew, or any other religious subgroup, we would reject such claims out of hand. We would reject them because it violates what we know about viral infections, and this would remain true even if there were a group of Baptists that were manifesting symptoms without any evidence of a pathogen present. We would forced to conclude that we were observing a case of mass hysteria, a well documented phenomena. To believe otherwise would require that we reject as invalid everything known to date about viral epidemiology despite the fact that in all other cases that body of theory has proven effective in understanding and controlling viral infections.
So its not a question of being premature at all, but being sufficiently aware to see that the impact of homeopathic theory being correct would perforce invalidate a much larger and well proven body of theory that by its repeated proven effectiveness cannot possibly be that wrong. Science is not practiced by leaping a every proffered idea, but by seeing it holistically as it should fit into the broader picture we have of the universe and if it is in too much disagreement with proven theory and established fact, demanding a great deal of proof before accepting it. Consequently your accusation of our rejection as being inappropriate and unscientific in the extreme is unwarranted, in fact it is quite the opposite: this is exactly how science is practiced.
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.”
– Richard Feynman, 1974
Ennis published her results, but even she admits that she cannot explain them. Jumping to the conclusion that these experiments offer some sort of “proof” of water memory or homeopathy is simply irresponsible.
This is why it is so difficult to take the claims of homeopathy seriously: the proponents shamelessly bend over backwards again and again to demonstrate any plausibility — any at all — and hungrily jump on every shred of evidence that even slightly supports their theory. In doing this, they give themselves away. Take Rustum Roy’s example “it’s just carbon.” That “argument” carries no weight with anyone who has even a rudimentary training in material science. It’s offered solely to confuse the layman, and that is one of the hallmarks of cargo cult science.
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
@BMS et al:
“Ennis published her results, but even she admits that she cannot explain them. Jumping to the conclusion that these experiments offer some sort of “proof” of water memory or homeopathy is simply irresponsible.”
Gentlemen, I could not agree more. The Ennis experiments in no way constitute a “proof” of Homeopathy and she rightly remains a sceptic. I believe if you examine my comments, all I am saying is that experiments such as hers demand continued experimentation rather than premature dismissal as “impossible”. I do hope my comments will not be misconstrued to support an assertion of “proof” based on the Ennis experiments.
Nor does the possibility that some portion of established science need to be recast in a new theory upon a successful experimentally confirmed theory of Homeopathy constitute any kind of a “proof” of the impossibility of Homeopathy. Such an attitude would bring all of science progress to a halt, in my opinion.
Regarding Dr. Roy. His papers seem to be eminently scientific and well reasoned. and hardly “cargo cult” science.
Indeed, it is just such a fundamental principle of materials that is being ignored in the rash attempt to dismiss water memory based on the “it’s just water” argument, ignoring or attempting to ignore structure and wrongly focus exclusively on composition. The “femtosecond” impossibility argument is a variant of this, in my opinion.
But those observations in no way constitute the conferring of veracity on any part of Roy’s ideas – I believe they are speculative and, once again (must I say it?) only indicative of the necessity for more research and most certainly not a proof. In addition, I’ve seen some rather odd ideas about Homeopathic curative effects explained by, supposedly, Quantum Mechanics operative at a macro level. I consider this absurd even though the possibilities are quite fun to entertain at a speculative level.
Thanks for entertaining my humble positions. I found several of the responses quite thought provoking and good and shall continue my reading in this area.
JP
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
If you have run head first into a wall 100 times and nearly busted your skull every time, do you think that just because David Copperfield creates the illusion that he walked through the Great Chinese Wall that you should try it 100 more times to see if it happens this time?
Why should we keep wasting time on it? Why do you expect us to follow up on a work that in all likelyhood is an error on her part? Why should we waste time, money and resources on something that is not the least bit likely to give us any new knowledge at all but instead just end up as another addition on “Failed”-pile? Why should we?!
Why not dig up other old theories… like flogiston or phrenology? Maybe theories about the four elements.
No?! Why do you think not?
Because they Do Not Work!
Homeopathy has tried… failed… thankyouverymuchforplaying, now get the hell off the stage and join the other losers.
Sooner or later we come to a stage where we say “Enough already!”. For homeopathy, that moment has come and gone. Live with it and move on, for cryin’ out loud!
/Michael
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
James Pannozzi said:
Pannozzi, this is the typical cry of the true crank: I’m right, therefor all that passed before is wrong.
You have got it absolutely backwards; the fact that these suggested mechanisms would violate such a large body of established knowledge, and would require such an major change in the standard model to accommodate them, that it would be impossible that any valid predictions could have ever been made with such a deficient understanding. This is not a question of some fine-tuning you understand, but a complete overhaul of such magnitude, that nothing done with the concept we now have of physics and chemistry would be valid. Yet over and over this standard view has been used successfully to predict the behavior of large complex systems in both the lab and industry for so long, and so well that we are forced to reject these explanations by homeopathy without much greater evidence that what has been provided. This is particularly true in this case because there are perfectly reasonable explanations for many of these supposed effects that do not require massive violations of the standard models and Occam (if nothing else) suggests that these are the more probable explanations.
What you are doing is falling into the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam which is this case is to assert that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false. All scientific theory is expected to be rigorous about key premises and empirical foundations and simply claiming that an explanation may be valid, without these bases covered because it has not proven false, is considered fallacious in every branch of legitimate science. In fact it is almost a touchstone of pseudoscience that the final defense of some particular, thoroughly discredited theory is to demand that it must be still be considered in the absence of hard proof that it is wrong.
Unfortunately for you, many of us here are not only skeptics, but are trained in the science as well. Such an argument carry no weight with us. It would be better for you, that you ground yourself in the basic sciences before launching into a defense of a theory with implications far beyond what you understand. Otherwise you simply look like an ignoramus.
Quote Comment
August 25th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
James Pannozzi said:
His “work” is almost the definition of cargo cult science. Here’s how Feynman put it:
“They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.”
And it’s the same with Dr. Roy’s claims — the apparent form might be right, but the planes don’t land.
Exactly what “fundamental principle of materials” is being ignored? That solids can have different crystal lattice structures?
I fail to see how this is relevant when discussing water in liquid form.
Got any more apples that you want to try to sell us as oranges?
Michael Karnerfors said:
Well, considering that homeopathy apparently was originally intended to be an improvement over the medical theory of illness that was based on an imbalance of Aristotle’s Four Humors, you’re not far off of the mark.
Quote Comment
August 26th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Even i was surprised by this news. Me, my parents used to depend on homeopathy. WHO has stated that those person suffering from diseases like HIV, tuberculosis, influenza, child diarrhoea and malaria must not depend on homeopathy for effectual cure. Also doctors have protested homeopathy treatment for infant diarrhoea.
Quote Comment
August 26th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Homeopathy never ceases to amaze me. In the 3 hours that I’ve been awake today I’ve already managed to disprove it’s claims.
I woke up, had a pee and flushed the toilet. Upon reaching the sewers the pee was greatly diluted by a factor of several thousand. By now it’s probly floating in a giant retention pond somewhere being futher diluted by 10’s of millions. By tomorrow that same amount of pee will be dispersed into Lake Ontario diluting it firmly into homeopathic territory. If homepathic theory is correct the water that I pee’d into this morning will have remembered the vibrations of the molecules of my pee and is now more potent than when it left my system… multiply this effect by the 10 million other people that flushed into Lake Ontario and drink from the same lake! We’re all drinking homeopathic dillutions of pee!!!! Everyday!
I made some juice last week from frozen concentrate. I tasted some of it straight from the can it was quite strong and way too sweet. So I diluted it with 3 cans of water as per directions and tasted it again. Wow it was even sweeter! So I diluted it even more! Damn near curled my toes! So I diluted it more and more and more and more. until it was homeopathic and dropped a few drops on my tongue! But me staight into a diabetic coma it was so sweet! Wait…. What? That’s not reality at all….
Quote Comment
August 26th, 2009 at 10:41 am
BE said:
Shouldn’t diluting a sugary drink actually cure diabetic coma? I mean, if like heals like and all…
Quote Comment
August 26th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
The Curtains said:
Yeah, like cures like so in reality something does the opposite. People seem to get confused on that one.
A homeopathic cure for heartburn would be based on something like citric acid or vinegar, because acidic foods cause heartburn. (of course diluted down to nothing)
Homeopathic sleep aids are made from stimulants (diluted down to nothing) – for example, caffeine, because that makes it more difficult to sleep. Therefore, a homeopathic alertness aid would actually have depressants as the active ingredient.
Homeopathic itch relief products could use an extract of poison ivy.
One thing that is also worth noting in homeopathy: Only the symptom matters. “like cures like” even if the cause is different. They try to downplay this and say it treats the whole person, but it’s really the opposite.
In science-based medicine, the symptom is often not nearly as important as the condition that caused it. Lets say, for example, a person goes into a hospital complaining of chest pains. The first thing they’ll try to do is determine if it is a heart attack, because that is one thing that causes chest pains. If the person does not seem to be having a heart attack, it could be something else: Acute angina, severe indigestion, a lung problems or even a cracked rib.
Those are all much much different things. You don’t treat a broken rib the same way you treat a heart attack. In fact, some things you do for a heart attack could be downright dangerous if the person has a different condition, like a heart arithmetic, but not a heart attack.
Homeopathic treatment doesn’t care what the problem is, only the symptom. You treat chest pain with a substance that normally would tend to cause chest pain. You treat an itchy rash with something that causes itches – regardless if the rash is caused by an allergic reaction, an irritating chemical, a bacterial infection, a fungal infection, damage to the skin surface – it doesn’t matter. All you need is something that would produce the same general symptom.
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 2:27 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Electromagnetic_signals_from_bacterial_DNA
O dear pl stop this person, might end up discovering HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS and all you guys will end up putting your head in a bowl of ****. (Not diluted though)
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 3:00 am
Nisha Singh said:
Nisha… the day I am shown evidence that has gained widespread consensus to be valid outside the homeopathic community, I will personally come see you, say to you “I was wrong”, and on my own volition dunk my head in a huge barrel of stinking feces.
Are you willing to make the same kind of commitment if in, for instance, 10 years no solid evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, accepted by the medical community at large, has surfaced?
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 14th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Nisha Singh said:
That’s not going to happen. Sorry.
Nisha Singh said:
I’m not too worried about that ever happening.
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Michael I make that commitment to you n all. Even more I am ready to get beheaded if homeopathy doesn’t works. I am not saying that because of any anecdote, I am saying that because of solid proof. I will pass it to you. Give me email ID. Patient was not responding to conventional medicine. He was constantly losing weight and had developed many complications. He was put on homeopathy (only homeopathy, no other medicine or therapy). In three months apart from improvement in symptoms (which I know you will call placebo effect) there was significant rise in CD4 count. It would be criminal if you still say that homeopathy doesnt work. Fulfill your commitment honestly when u see those reports. I wont be there but God must be watching you.
AND Mr Buzz0 I know you cant do anything. You ability of inability to do anything is clearly visible. Be sure in coming years you are going to become more n more blind because you wont be able to tolerate the growth of homeopathy. You will for sure deny all proofs. This scientist has not shown about homeopathy but has shown that with dilutions along with shaking (thats what homeopathy says) there remains energy and this can be neutralized by equal opposite and similar energy (another homeopathy principle). So Mr Buzz0 (i wont call you a dr as a person who is so insensitive to human suffering and is so blind to possibilities of science CANT be a dr. Shame on you all who are against homeopathy for your petty motives. And this WHO warning is not against homeopathy as projected by you guys but it says that no huge claims should be made about cure of certain diseases and this applies equally to homeopathy and conventional medicine.
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Nisha Singh said:
There is no scientific proof this nonsense works and you are not suppling any by tossing out anecdotes. They don’t mean anything because they are just so much ink on paper if its not constantly repeatable under controlled clinical conditions. You are not presenting evidence, you will not be taken seriously here until you do, and your insults – given that they are coming from someone we consider a fraud and a quack – carry no weight here ether.
Please go to Hell. Go directly to Hell. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 2:46 am
Nisha Singh said:
What a foolish statement. Scientific fact and reality is based on provable, measurable data and on empirical observations. Religion may involve conflicts of ideas where people are beheaded, but when there is a scientific disagreement, it is solved by examination of the data, not violence.
The point being: an individuals commitment to something does not make something true. You’d be beheaded if homeopathy is wrong? Well, then I could say I’ll up that and say I’d be willing to be tortured and then beheaded if it is right. See? It makes no difference. We can go back and forth with who will put more on the line to prove their faith. Faith is irrelevant.
Nisha Singh said:
My email is on the contact page, I’ll gladly look at any reports.
This story (which I am skeptical is even true) is not an example of valid data. Even if it is true, it means nothing. Diseases of many kinds, even severe cancer has been known to vanish. In cancer it is called spontaneous remission. In the case of someone “constantly losing weight” the prognosis is even more unsure, since there’s no actual diagnosis.
Someone getting better all of a sudden can be a number of things. It can be that the diagnosis was wrong to begin with. It could be a case of spontaneous remission. It could be that a pathogen was finally eliminated by the immune system.
Evaluating data is never based on a single case. There are freak incidence and there is never certainty as to whether it is really a causal relationship. In clinical trials they always use a large number of subjects – the larger the better. They follow them closely and assure there are good demographic controls and no outside influences could skew things.
Nisha Singh said:
Feel free to report me to your local law enforcement agency.
Nisha Singh said:
No.. that is not how the human body works. You put a substance into the human body and it does not do something because it is “energized” with some kind of magical influence. The reason substances have an effect on the human body is because they have biochemical properties that create an effect.
Antacids don’t work because they are “charged with the opposite energy” they work because they’re alkelines and simple high school chemistry tells you that they react with stomach acid. Stimulants don’t produce alertness because they contain energy. They produce alertness because they bind to chemical receptors in the nervous system. Pain killers don’t contain energy either, they either block nerve impulses or act on some other process to reduce pain.
There’s no magic hocus-pocus involved with spiritual energies being transferred. We’re biochemical entities and altering our processes is accomplished by biochemistry. Water has its chemical properties. Two hydrogens and an oxygen. You can shake it all you want.
Nisha Singh said:
Call me Mr if you want or call me Doc or Buzz or Buzzo or Steve or Stephen.
You want to know why I have that name? It’s not to deceive anyone. I never said I was a doctor. The reason I have it is that has been my screen name since I was about 13 and I use it for everything I sign up for: AIM, Yahoo IM, Google Talk, Skype, all the forums I’m on etc etc. It’s an issue of interpolability. I use it because it’s consistent and it makes it easy for my friends to find me. If I have a service I use that name for it.
I used it for this page because a lot of people in online communities know me by that handle and because I wanted my friends to find this page.
Quite honestly, I’m thinking of dropping that name (from this page) if I can figure out a way to re-write all my comments with my real name (Which is Steve)
If I had realized this would be such a big deal, I would have put more thought into this back in 1994-1995 when I came up with the name that would hence-forth be my general purpose internet handle.
By the way: I’m also not a professional research scientist. I love science, I write about it, I use it every day and I have plenty of professional scientist and doctors who I know and have consulted with and who generally tend to support my side on science-based issues.
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Nivah, what I meant was not that I don’t think I could ever be wrong, but rather that I am fully prepared to accept I might be wrong and take some, in this case humiliating, consequences.
You on the other hand don’t even seem to entertain the notion that you might be wrong… because I seriously doubt that you are really willing to lose your life over such a thing as being proved wrong.
Apart from that I have nothing to add after Steve’s excellent post here. His post mirrors my sentiments very well.
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 4:23 am
I used to think homeopathic products might have some value or might be effective in some cases. That was because I used to think homeopathic meant something like natural or herbal or traditional. Lots of products say homeopathic and its quite a buzz word, but they never actually tell you waht it means. I just assumed it was something like that.
Once I actually learned the definition of the word, I was pretty shocked that any product based on something that ridiculous would even be considered. I was almost in disbelief that they really are based on that and that this is not just a word attached to them. Point of fact, they are indeed based on diluting otherwise harmful substances down to the point of non existence.
Their secret seems to be to keep the actual theory behind this on the down low. I think most people would have enough of a brain to realize how crazy the whole concept is if they knew the real facts. I hope they would at least.
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Great. Diseases start to go into remission on mere sight of homeopathy. What a contrast. Then may be all those patients getting better after administration of conventional medicine might also be a cases of spontaneous remission. Why not because millions die in hospitals even after loads of conventional medicine. And what a wonder. In HIV patient if CD4 count improves it is a case of remission. Great Logic Great Sccience. You guys are nothing else but pseudo scientist who do not know basic facts about science. And that is look for facts with open mind.
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Nisha, now you’re rambling.
If you have nothing more to contribute to this debate other than lashing out with nonsensical rants, I suggest you go bark up someone else’s tree because the monkeys in this one are getting bored.
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Nisha Singh said:
No. Diseases sometimes heal themselves and things like cancer go into spontaneous remission on rare occasions with or without homeopathy.
If you cherry pick the case examples there will surely be a handful who went into remission around the time of starting homeopathy. They would have gone into remission anyway, homeopathy or not. You can do the same with prayer or anything. Pray for thousands to get well, when one does, use that as proof and ignore the fact that everyone else died.
Nisha Singh said:
“all those patients” no. One or two? yes. That is why we do not use anecdotes in evaluating medicine. We use case control studies. Large numbers of people and controls. We demonstrate that the medicine has a signifficantly better probability of success than doing nothing, even if the doing nothing approach has a success rate higher than zero.
Nisha Singh said:
No doctor or scientist will claim that even the best of modern medicine can cure everyone of everything. We are bound to reality and fact, and the unfortunate fact is that many diseases are not curable or have a cure rate that is pretty low. The human body is complex and not all damages it sustains are reversible.
Modern medicine does not have a 100% success rate. It never will. It has a very high success rate and it is getting higher.
Eventually we all die. That’s not something that can be completely removed.
Homeopaths can tell us that they can cure everything, because they lie. Show me a 200 year old homeopath. If homeopathy could really cure everything then they could live forever because any health problem would be eliminated as soon as it cropped up.
Nisha Singh said:
It could be. It could be that their immune system suddenly started to fight and reject the retrovirus. It has happened. One single person counts for nothing. Two or three don’t count either. This is especially true because you don’t give verifiable details. Were they on other treatments?
Provide a proper clinical case control studies and I will listen. My mind is open. You must have the same on both sides of the study except for the one variable. If other treatments are used, then both the control group and the study group must receive identical treatments with the exception of homeopathy. It does not need to be the only treatment as long as all others are identical. That proves it is the variable that makes the difference.
Show me one study that documents this and I will listen. Show me two and I will be even more interested. Show me three and I’ll start to consider that I might be wrong.
That is another important factor – repeatability and confirmation. This is especially true with extraordinary claims.
Does this seem to make sense to anyone else?
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Nisha Singh is not going to be convinced because she is a believer, not a scientist. We are arguing religion with this type of commenter, and like all who believe in faith healing, it is the few accidental remissions that count, not the majority of cases that fail.
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
DV82XL said:
While I know what you’re saying, just a nitpick on the terminology: It’s not necessary to be a scientist to be science literate. We live in a society where people are free to make their own medical decisions. Doctors can advise people, but so can quacks and ultimately it’s generally the patient’s decision as to what course of treatment to go with.
Not to mention the fact that policy is controlled by a combination of voters opinions and the marketplace.
It would be unrealistic to think that we could ever reach the point where the general public understands the finer points of clinical studies and is well versed in all the statistical mathematics that goes into them. However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that the general public could be taught to at least realize that clinical studies are important and that anecdotes are not. I don’t think it’s unrealistic to think that the average person could comprehend the reasoning behind the scientific method and why its important.
Also, I think there is some failure here. I graduated high school without hearing a single teacher ever utter the word “Placebo effect” and that’s just not acceptable. There was some instruction in experimental controls, but only in a very narrow context.
These concepts are really not that complicated. They take some getting used to, because it’s not how humans naturally think, but once you get a basic understanding it all makes sense.
There is no focus at all here and it’s critical. You can invest all the time and money in the world on training world class physicians and equipping hospitals with the best technology. None of that can do any good to the person who says “I don’t think I’m going to go to the alopathic doctors and big corporations. My friend’s cousin’s fiance’s sister went to an acupuncturist and she swears it cured her in one session.”
If people had even the most basic understanding of how important the scientific method is and how worthless anicdotes are and if they have any knowledge of the extent to which we go to test and evaluate drugs and procedures, I don’t think we’d have the issues with vaccine rejection and preventable outbreaks that we do
Quote Comment
September 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
drbuzz0 said:
There is huge amount of truth in what you say, the current state of science education in K-12 is criminal in the West at this point in time. In fact many of the topics we rail about here (in fact almost all of them) are rooted in this gap in public education. Why this is so is beyond me.
If I were a card-carrying member of the conspiracy crowd, I would be forced to say this has been done on purpose to keep the population ignorant and thus pliable. However I am not, so I will put it down to the terminal indifference that seems to have infected those in public education.
Quote Comment
September 16th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Nisha Singh said:
I do not know how old you are or what your education is, but if you honestly believe this, then I can see why you might. Anicdotal evidence can be convincing especially when it is dramatic. The idea that there is some kind of “energy” to substances or to life forms is a common theme in many belief systems, but medicine has not shown it to be valid.
Mainstreem medicine has improved a lot and is always getting better. We can’t help everyone but we can help most. Things are getting better through science and research. Homeopathy is not part of the modern scientific approach because it has been shown ineffective.
If you are willing to open your mind and consider some things you will be better off and will lead a healthier life and your knowledge will help others. Are you willing to consider learning about evidence based treatment and science?
I do not ask that you believe anything you are told or read from the pro-science side, only that you listen and consider it. Once you have given it thought, it becomes apparent that it all makes sense and is perfectly reasonable and almost self-evident.
Quote Comment
September 16th, 2009 at 1:52 am
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672601?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647211?ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647210?ordinalpos=19&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647209?ordinalpos=20&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647208?ordinalpos=21&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647207?ordinalpos=22&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647206?ordinalpos=23&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19617203?ordinalpos=27&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19474239?ordinalpos=41&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19468651?ordinalpos=42&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420956?ordinalpos=51&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
there are millions more and not the least
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Electromagnetic_signals_from_bacterial_DNA
(No wonder no body replied to this)
Its not that research is not there. Its not that WHO and others have not seen benefits of homeopathy. Benefits are homeopathy are well established and research is going on to find exact mode of action.
Its only that some dumboz who call themself scientist and pose as open minded are blindly against. May be they are paid for this. Infact you monkeys (as told by michael) are talking nothing else but anecdotes.
See your anecdotes
Research in Conventional Medicine – True
Research in Homeopathy – Become blind to it and keep saying NO No
Succesful cases of Conventional Medicine – True
Succesful cases of Homeopathy – Remission of disease
Failed cases of Conventional Medicine – We are with reality, cant treat 100%
Failed cases of Homeopathy – Told you it cant work
No one can help who are intentionally blind. Remain blind you pseudo scientist monkeys.
Quote Comment
September 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Nisha, one of the things that separates a real scientist from someone like you is the capacity to think critically, and the capability to evaluate material of the sort you have linked to. I have those skills and read the abstracts of the items you posted and there is nothing there that even begins to approach a proper clinical trial, in some cases on one patient. Single case reports are never used to draw conclusions of the depth that is attempted here.
Many of these rely on self reporting of undefined improvements by patients that had chosen homeopathic treatment, a huge source of error, among other very poor design elements. These are not scientific studies, they are bad jokes. One claims to detect differences in UV absorption in homeopathic preparations that I happen to know is below the noise floor for the type and model of spectrophotometer that they used.
There is nothing here except very bad research that would never pass in any branch of real science.
Fortunately the wheel is beginning to turn against this nonsense, and all of these quack cures are coming under pressure from the law. You are fighting a loosing battle and no amount of slinging insults and flinging out bad studies is going to save you. We are winning. Get used to it.
Quote Comment
September 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Many of those studies either found no real evidence other than homeopathic preparation appear to be “safe” or they found very insignificant differences. Others are from dubious sources. This is out of the thousands of studies that have been done, a few cane up with some shaky results.
It’s very hard to evaluate them given that all that is avaliable is the summary and you have to pay pubmed to get the whole thing. (Sorry, I’m not going to spend my money on downloading homeopathy studies. Perhaps I’ll go to one of the local libraries that has a subscription to some journal archives, but that’s my limit in most cases)
There’s another issue is the fact that although peer reviewed journals are considered the place to find scientific information, the peer review process was never intended to filter out all the deceptive, limited-scope, worthless or otherwise low value studies. The peer review process is generally intended to simply make sure that the studies have a methodology and has a reasonable data set. They look for major flaws and things that are just plain wrong, but science generally thrives on freedom and openness and different journals have different standards.
One has to remember that these journals were founded on the presumption that they were catering to a readership with the sophistication to understand the context of the studies. They may reject outright flawed methods, but if the data indicates something that is a very weak link that could be accounted for by random variation, there’s generally an understanding that their readership is perfectly capable of understanding that and does not need training wheels or someone to hold their hand and explain to them when something is meaningful and when it is not.
This presents a problem when these peer reviewed journal studies are read and reported on by someone without the slightest gumption of how this crap works. It’s not that you need to be an expert in this, but you need to at least understand the terminology and basic theory. It could probably be taught in a weekend course, but all too many reporters and readers of this stuff don’t even have that.
I once saw a report in a major newspaper where they talked about a study and the reporter said that the study “had an error in it, so researchers are not sure of the result.” Looking at the study and the report, it was clear that the reporter had no idea what he was talking about. The study used the word “error” in the context of confidence interval, as in “error bars” or “error region.” The reporter had no idea what they meant when they said “The final analysis had an error of +/- .02″ or something like that.
Another big problem is that in the age of the internet, it’s easy to manufacture a “peer reviewed journal” that exists just to cater to your propaganda and where the only “peers” are a couple of other idiots.
I think a good rule is that if you haven’t ever heard of the journal before, you should look it up and see how long it has been around. Also skim through the past journals and look at the kind of studies it presents. If it is saturated with stuff with sensational titles or that pertains to non-mainstream stuff or something like that, I’d label it a wolf in sheep’s clothing and reject it as a credible source.
Quote Comment
September 16th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
The problems you note are not lost on the journals, and they have tried various things to try to deal with unsophisticated people reading the studies and completely missunderstanding them or the studies being used out of context. A couple tried having some comments on the study and its validity and importance run along side it. These would be written by the reviewers or editors. This was very poorly received and the study authors took some offense to it. They had a point in some cases. If the editor said that the study didn’t prove much of anything, for example. It was also critisized that they jumped the gun by being critical of the study when it was published, therefore prejudicing the readers onto their spin. The more accepted way is to have any critical comments run in the next addition, thus allowing the information to be digested by readers.
Of course, any editorial or other non-study content is lost on anyone who grabs the study off of a database or something. Many peer reviewed journals contain other content besides the peer reviewed content. They may have a section of letters to the editor or of a few news items of interest, although this is always well labeled and not to be confused with the study content. Its often worth reading, if they have that kind of thing, but you have to actually get the journal to get the letters to the editor and not just the study like databases.
The other answer would be to have the news media have some science editors with enough background to know when they’re making mistakes, but that doesn’t help with those who look at it themselves and get confused.
Sir John Maddox, the long time editor of Nature was one of the biggest voices in trying to address the missuse of otherwise valid scientific studies. One thing he did was he enforced a very high standard for the quality of the study abstracts and introductions. He clearly was aware that this is as far as many read and he always made sure that there was nothing that could be taken as an overstatement and things were given in proper context. He probably worked harder than anyone else in this area.
Sir Maddox was able to get with a bit more than many editors could, simply because Nature is so prestigious. Having your writeup rejected or edited by other journals might get some irritated enough to withdraw it and publish it elsewhere. Nature, however, had enough clout that you could get away with that and the authors were still happy just to get it published in the journal.
Quote Comment
September 16th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Someone said -
We are winning. Get used to it.
Thats it, you guys are vindictive, concerned only with your own motive of eliminating every other therapy and treatment mode except conventional medicine. All can see Your win as win of pharma companies. But fortunately thats not happening. Open your eyes, do not remain blind. Therapies like homeopathy, acupuncture, ayurveda, yoga have grown remarkably and are helping people in living healthy. And remember my battle is for peoples health so I get equally excited about stem cell research. I feel equally happy about vaccine against swine flu and homeopathic prevention of swine flu. And we are successfully doing that. Both prevention and treatment of swine flu cases. So I am not winning. People are winning against prejudice, against selfish business motives. Regarding other comments, I told before Homeopathy research – simply find fault and become blind. So remain blind, pseudo scientists.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Nisha Singh said:
“Conventional Medicine” I assume meaning “Mainstream Medicine” is the kind of medicine that works. Naturally I’d like to see an elimination of the “alternative” methods, as they don’t work.
Basically, there are three kinds of therapies:
Experimental: Based on sound science, but we may not be 100% sure of their effectiveness and safety. They may or may not have reached the point of human trials. The primary reason that we’re not certain is that they’re son new that there is simply not enough data…. yet.
Mainstream Medicine: Therapies and medications that are safe and effective, have been proven safe and effective and are approved for general use and used by competition doctors.
Alternative Medicine: Things for which there is absolutely no data that they work, even in the slightest capacity. Not for lack of trying or data either. These are the therapies that have been studied for years and years and nothing, zip, zilch, nada.
Nisha Singh said:
It’s okay to be prejudice, as long as it’s in an appropriated manner. I’m prejudiced against certain things. I’m not prejudiced against people because of race or ethnicity or background. I’m not prejudiced against ideas based on who formulates them. I am prejudiced against outlandish claims with little or no evidence. I tend to presume them false until proven otherwise. This mindset has served me well.
I don’t view the flat earth side of the argument with equal merit to the round (though not perfectly spherical) one. I am prejudiced against it.
Nisha Singh said:
Oh gawd, not this again.
Look… to cut to the chase, it doesn’t really matter to me what the motivation of a producer of a product is while evaluating its safety and effectiveness.
Boeing is a big profit-driven corporation and has even been accused of heavy handed tactics and dishonest practices on government contracts. Still, I’d gladly fly in one of their airplanes because they’re safe and get you where you want to go. I would not fly in an airplane made out of bubblegum and cardboard and built by a crazy guy who lives under a bridge, even if he was motivated entirely by altruistic intent.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Nisha Singh said:
You don’t get it do you? If homeopathy had passed the trials, that too would have been conventional medicine. It’s not the label that determines… it’s the evidence that it can actualyl do something that matters. And homeopathy fails miserably every time it is scrutinized under proper scientific observing conditions.
So… not it is not conventional medicine. It’s quackery because it does not perform as advertized. Not that we are surprised because already from the onset the “sceince” behind it is clearly ludicrous. It makes claims that has never been observed in any phenomena in physics, chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicial science.
All can see Your win as win of pharma companies.
Companies selling homeopathic preparations isn’t exactly doing bad. Maybe you’re a representative of such a company tyrying to defend your business, hm?
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Anecdotes again ‘dr’buzz0.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Anecdotes again, Michael.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Michael Karnerfors said:
It’s not like we don’t get those around here on occasion. They get them on Science Based Medicine too and the JREF and basally any other forum or blog that dismisses homeopathy. Eventually one of them will wonder in and try to defend it. Some quack from Delhi tried desperately to defend Homeopathy a while back and also dropped his website address several times in the discussion.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Nisha Singh said:
Nisha Singh said:
Do you even know what that word means?
Nether one of those posters offered up an anecdote, and you’ve just shown the depth of your ignorance by accusing them. But rail on, you’re right – we are vindictive, and we are going to hunt these quacks down and put them out of business for the sake of all the people they have hurt with their frauds. Someone has to protect the ignorant from parasites like these.
That all you can come up with are the equivalent of a school yard taunt of the beaten, is very telling.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Anecdotes Rumbling Denial Blindness – true picture os pseudo scientists. Remain blind that suits you.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 3:18 am
Hey Steve, how about if you do a little lookup of this quack-defender’s IP-address from yoru Wordpress log and see which part of the world “Nisha Singh” is from?
Concidering that Singh is a common Indian middle name, and India being a country that has somewhere between 60 000 and 300 000 practitioning homeopaths; with 180 colleges teaching courses; 7500 government clinics and 307 hospitals dispensing homeopathic preparations, I am starting to think we are pretty much doing the equivalent of teaching science and atheism to the amish.
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 3:29 am
I will cut your work short. I am from New Delhi, India. Secondly no homeopath in India is a quack as it is recognized by the Govt of India. And homeopaths are LEGALLY helping people around the world including USA and UK. No need to divert debate. You lost it. Now trying to look for other things to discuss. But I am not interested. I am only interested in eliminating selfish prejudice against homeopathy.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Michael Karnerfors said:
Perhaps the “atheism” is a turn-off. I remember watching a TV program several years back about some anti-faith-healer campaigners (can’t remember if it was in India or in Africa). They even did demonstrations to crowds to show that faith healing doesn’t work.
They emphasized that that they were not anti-religion but merely anti-superstition.
Another example — wasn’t militant anti-theism one of the crucial weaknesses of the international Communist movement? (The other one being that the Kremlin’s attempt to control foreign Communist movements caused said movements to be seen in their own countries as treasonous lackeys of Moscow…)
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Thank you Nisha, that’s pretty much all we need to know.
In other words: you live in, and presumably was brought up in, an environment that since 180 years back, since the days of John Martin Honigberger, one of Hahnemann’s buddies, has a tradition of regarding homeopathy as valid. India sees the largest homepathic industry in the world. And as you say, it’s even concidered by ligitimate by the government.
This means there are huge self-interrests trying to defend themselves here. Not only would it mean billions of USD equivalent lost if people stopped regarding homeopathy as valid; we’re also talking a loss prestige that goes all the way from the single individual citizen realizing he/she’s been duped all his/her life up to the government that realizes they have been spending loads of money certifying people as “legtitimate” practitioners of quackery. Every practitioner of homeopathy that admits to homeopathy being worthless, would haev to admti to themselves that when they thought they were helping peopel, they may haev instead been harming them seriously by not recommending them to go se a real doctor. Can you imaging the guilt and shame these people must feel if they are forced to re-evaluate their outlook on this thing?!
Hence, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell 1 billion people are willingly going to admit they have been suckered by a romanian and a german 180 years ago. Everyone stands to either lose money or become horribly embarassed and/or ashamed of their gullibility.
We’re way past the point of science when it comes to India and homeopathy. Now it’s all about defending the business and saving face; about saving themselves from being the biggest laughing stock in modern medical history.
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 4:36 am
What rubbish. It is valid and legal in India and it is because it has been proved to help people. And before you jump to any conclusion, ask common man who is laughing stock. Its you. People are sure about their choices. They want both because they know alone no therapy or treatment mode is 100 % effective (including so called mainstream medicine). Not me people say that these drs talk such because they are afraid that their business will be badly affected. And you better be carefull if you write anything against India because in that case you will only be exposing your real ugly face. And When I say homeopathy is vaild, I told you that including USA and UK. Homeopathy is growing by about doubling every year in USA. There are homeopathic medical colleges. Homeopathic drs are practicing and helping people. All this shows that people are accepting homeopathy. So who should be ashamed, who is guilty and who is laughing stock. You know very well.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Nisha… it’s pretty evident, isn’t it, that if someone conducted a large-scale review of all the supposed “evidence” of homeopathy’s efficacy, and found it to be non-effective… that would not make the second most populated country in the world just shrug and say “ok, so we were wrong all this time”?
I mean… all I need to do is ask you: what would convince you that homeopathy is not effective?
The answer “nothing”, isn’t it? You were even prepared earlier to lay your life on the line for homepathy. This means that no matter the science, no matter the evidence, you have cemented your opinion and will automatically refuse to accept anything that speaks to the opposite. You are fanatically bound to swear by homeopathy and will refuse to listen to anythign that says otherwise.
What’s so unreasonable to assume that this kind of stubborness will also extend to all of India’s homeopaths? They have dedicated their lives to thsi and think it’s for real. How many of them do you believe would be willing to accept proof that all they have been doing is giving people shaken water? I dare-say less than one in a hundred.
No to mention the Indian health authorities! Gods what a rid ethey have been taken on. Do you think they will just shrug and go “Ok, so we were completely wrong all these year”? I don’t.
There’s money, pride, prestige and beliefs at stake here. The people that have any or all of that to lose, will place science as a very distant second.
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Just out of interest, what position does the Government of Pakistan hold regarding homeopathy? Are people following a monotheistic rather than a polytheistic religious faith (but otherwise from the same cultural milieu) more or less vulnerable to quackery?
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 8:17 am
George Carty said:
See for yourself Geroge: http://www.google.com/search?q=homeopathy+pakistan
Not much better I’m afraid when they have a “National counsil for homeopathy” under the “Ministry of health government of Pakistan”.
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 8:48 am
There is a saying in Hindi Language.
Haath Kangan Ko Arsi Kya, Padhe Likhe ko Farsi Kya.
It means if someone is wearing a bangle in hand, he or she does not need a mirror to confirm it. Similarly Arabic language is not difficult to understand by someone who is educated and learned it.
So my conviction is not religious kind which is so projected by you guys. It is because of evidence that I see everyday. I am in homeopathic hospital. I everyday see cases with great results under homeopathy. Right from common cold to HIV, I have seen results. I have seen pathologies going away. I have seen cases of drug resistant tuberculosis getting better. I have seen disappearance of lichen, warts, adenoids, gall bladder and kidney stones, gastric and intestinal ulcers. I have seen patients of asthma, hypertension, epilepsy responding in seconds. Is this all fraud or remission of disease. Not at all. And we see cases who come after years of conventional medicine treatment. So yes no amount of research by those who do not know ABC of homeopathy is going to change my opinion. Yes I agree till date science is not able to explain how homeopathy works but that does not mean that it does not work. This is deficiency of scietific methods and I am sure in coming years research will prove the mode of working of homeopathy. Till that time I am not going to be guilty of depriving suffering souls the benefit of homeopathy.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Nisha Singh said:
So it’s about job security for you then.
Well not that I can blame you for lashing out then, because I too would probably also go into total denial if someone claimed that the work I do is based on a complete sham. So it turns out you do not only have a prestige interrest in defending homeopathy… your livelyhood depends on it.
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Nisha Singh said:
That’s not the issue by the way.
There are many things we don’t know how or why they work. Gravity for instance. Why is there a force between every particle in the universe that draws them together? How does it work?
We have no clue… honestly we have a very poor clues as to what causes gravity.
But that alone does not mean that gravity is not a scientificaly validated theory. Newton proposed a theory of gravity which predicts this force and bodies’ behaviour under the influence of gravity. This is easy to test and as such they have done it. Stills hold up after several hundred years. The existance of gravity is not in doubt just because the mechanism behind it is unknown.
Homepathy on the other hand fails to provide even proof of its existence as an effective treatment. You claim you have proof in that you see homeopathy working “every day”. I see a few huge holes in your reasoning:
1) How do you prove that these supposed improvements that you claim you see are correctly observed?
2) How do you prove that these supposed improvments are due to the homeopathic compounds and not something else?
3) How do you prove that these supposed improvements would not have taken place anyway?
You can’t… not in any of the above. These cases are not double blinded, so we have obeservational bias in both the patients and those giving the treatments. And you have no control groups so you have nothing to compare with. You can’t prove dickens with this because its all anecdotes and rationalizing on your part.
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Nisha Singh said:
Yes, homeopathy is recognized and sanctioned in India. It’s a HUGE problem and a great example of an absolutely astonishingly bad government policy. It comes down to a special interest managing to exert enough pressure on a government. The healthcare system in India really has a lot of problems to begin with, it’s a mix of modern medicine (but not enough of it) and a lot of quackery and various clinics of varying levels of quality. The fact that homeopathy is recognized is not helping.
Nisha Singh said:
There has been a concerted effort in both the US and UK by the homeopathic lobby to force the government to recognize and provide homeopathic preparations. It’s probably worse in the UK, where the policy is being championed by some celebrities including Price Charles.
These efforts generally go right to the politicians because the regulatory agencies are smart enough to reject homeopathy. The FDA in the US and the MHRA in the UK are the agencies to which power is delegated to regulate and approve medications and decide how they’re labeled, sold and prescribed. The proponents of homeopathy have tried to get members of parliament to pass legislation that would force the sanctioning of homeopathic products and bypass the decisions of the agencies normally delegated the power to make the decision.
In the UK, there has been a powerful effort and currently their healthcare system will provide for some homeopathic facilities and preparations. The science minister and several of the top ranking medical officials have railed against this and the Royal Society has made very strong statements against it. This has at least helped prevent things from getting much worse due to political opposition.
In the US it’s not as public, but some pet projects for funding this nonsense like the “National Institutes For Complimentary and Alternative Medicine” have been snuck into bills. There has also been political pressure for the FTC and FDA to not enforce standard trade law against homeopathic products. By US law you can’t advertise a product as doing something it doesn’t. Deceptive advertising is considered fraud. Also, all health products are supposed to be certified for effectiveness and safety by the FDA. Homeopathic products have managed to get a free pass on both of these requirements.
So I will admit that the governments of the world do indeed sanction or at least approve homeopathic products. This is not proof of anything except for dirty politics and bad policies.
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Via The Hindu we get news that the state of Maharashtra is investing money in research into a homeopathic swine flu vaccine of sorts.
A senior city homeopath Dr Sreerang Oak had on Friday advocated a preventive treatment combining two bio-chemic substances of homeopathy — ‘Kali Mur’ and ‘Ferrum Phos’ (with power of 12 X )– which he said could arrest the spread of the H1N1 virus among population.
Wow, they know they can arrest, read stop dead on its tracks, the spread of the swine flu, before the research the money is supposed to be spent on has even been done! That does not augur well for the state of Maharashtra!
Four tablets each of the two medicines, easily and cheaply available with chemists could stop the infection in the first stage, bestowing an immunity on the person against the virus, he claimed.
They even know the exact dosage for goodness sake, before the research is done! Talk about quackery!
From: Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I just made a post that I’d worked on for a couple of days describing how homeopathy supposedly works.
Anyways, they don’t need to “test” it or evaluate the doses. The theory of homeopathy states that all you need to do is find substances that would produce the same symptoms of the flu. Just find some chemicals that cause fever, fatigue, nausea, headache and so on. That shouldn’t be too difficult to find.
Kali Mur is an antiquated nitch term which means potassium chloride. I think it was used by alchemists, but it’s not recognized by modern chemistry.
Ferrum Phos is Ferric pyrophosphate, also a non-standard and antiquated term, not reconized by IUPAC. Both are considered “Cell Salts” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemic_cell_salts
Notice that when used in high enough doses, they would tend to cause some of the same things that flu does: http://www.digitalnaturopath.com/cond/C258297.html
If you take enough they irritate a number of systems in the body and cause swelling, pain etc
Quote Comment
September 17th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
‘Dr’buzzo what a horrible ’scientist’ you are. You speak without facts. And plz do not comment on India because if I start commenting on true deed of your country, you will die of disgust. And medical system is India is much better than yours. It is available and affordable. Not like some countries where if you cant buy big insurance you cant get treatment. And you have to wait for months for treatment. People from such big countries are coming to India to get quick treatment. One doctor from such country came and told that his father got a date of 4 months for his dental procedure and he came to India and could get it done immediately at 1/10th price. He told us that drs in his hospital meet every morning to discuss how to get maximum out of patients by using costly investigations and procedures. It is much better here in India. Yes poverty is there but it is not a crime and is being taken care of by rapid progress of India. It is better than many criminal activities that are fathered by so called great countries.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Nisha Singh said:
There is one big problem facing India, and it is people like you. As the nation works to improve living standards and develop industries and technology, you and other scam artists continue to take advantage of the unsophisticated and uneducated, drawing them away from legitimate medicine and toward the lies of homeopathy.
India has one of the worst problems with quacks in the world. In the Indian countryside, “God-Men” play simple tricks to sell their magic potions to the hapless sick residents and in the cities, homeopaths prey on the sick, the old and the uneducated.
Nisha Singh said:
You have no idea what you’re talking about. The biggest strength of the American system is that there is no wait. Everyone gets treatment. Go to a hospital with a serious problem and you get treatment. Go with a not so serious problem and you will have to wait hours but you will get treatment.
The only issue that really causes problems for the uninsured is that they are stuck with the bill. But they do not ask you if you can pay before giving treatment for anything critical. Most Americans are insured. For those who are not, they end up stuck with a big bill and may be forced to bankruptcy. You know what that means? It means that for the next few years they’re going to have trouble getting good terms on a car loan. Yeah… seriously.
Nisha Singh said:
I didn’t say there weren’t good doctors and hospitals in India. There certainly are, for those who can afford it and who are not suckered into homeopathic treatment by a quack.
Nisha Singh said:
It is not that your country is criminal. It is that **you** are and so are every other homeopath and self-proclaimed wizard and warlock or psychic healer or whatever other scam it is. Your country is moving forward not because of you but despite you and these quacks are the sand in the gears of progress that slow the process of improvement.
If you care so much about your country, about progress toward the improvement of it, about health and about humanity, please stop defrauding from the society you proclaim to care about.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Nisha, are you just plain stupid? You keep telling us stories that you cannot validate and then have the temerity to call us bad scientists – I honestly don’t believe you know what science is or what a scientist does.
I also know that Indian homeopaths have killed more people than they have helped – it cannot be otherwise because the whole premise of homeopathy is nonsensical and it has never been proven effective at any statistically significant level. If indeed you work in a homeopathic ‘hospital’ you are working in death-house and are a direct accessory to murder by criminal negligence.
You have nothing to say to anyone here with the blood of innocent victims on your hands who came to you for help. You revolt me because you make a living as a parasite on those that cannot defend themselves, you and all those that practice this and similar quackery belong in prison.
When all is said and done you are nothing but a bunch of criminals.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 12:27 am
world knows who is criminal, its people like you know try to deprive people of good health options. you are not only disgusting thieves but a blot on human civilization.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 1:04 am
If I were a homeopath in India right now, I’d be trying very hard to defend my profession (if you can call it that) and to try to promote homeopathy in political circles and to secure any kind of government support I could. The reason is I think I’d be scared of what was happening.
Think about what it must be like to be a homeopath who has made a living by scheming around false information and exploiting ignorance. You look around you and you see education improving, more Indians going into science and tech fields than ever, more information, improving health care. This is your nightmare! The thing that can kill your scheme is education and real science based medicine. Every scientist that an Indian university produces is one more person to debunk your lies and bring enlightenment to society. Every real doctor is your enemy.
If I were an Indian homeopath, I’d see the changes over the past 10-20 years and I’d wonder what the next 10-20 bring. I’d be very worried and I’d be trying to cling to whatever I could to keep things up.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Michael I do not earn a single penny out of homeopathy and the hospital I work in is a govt run hospital which gives totally free of cost treatment to general public. I am sure about the results because of many reasons – effect on children even newborn (so cant be placebo effect) quickness of effect (remission does not happen in a day where for last several years patient was suffering) improvement in cases where remission is not seen or not possible (reversal of pathologies).
And now facts, no rumbling anecdotes, no beating about the bush.
Homeopathy is fraud – No, it has been shown to be effective by single and double blind clinical studies. Also clinics around the world have millions of successful cases.
Homeopathy is money making business – No, cost of homeopathy is negligible compared to conventional medicine. There is no money in homeopathy. No one will ever join homeopathy for money. It is not money but homeopaths are into it just because of passion to heal the suffering souls.
Homeopaths are quacks – No, homeopaths are equally qualified as other drs like in anatomy, physiology, pathology, medicine, clinical investigation etc It is recognized by government and drs are licensed.
Homeopaths are making people fool – No, homeopaths do not go to peoples houses to force them into homeopathy, its people who choose homeopathy. And contrary to what you are saying homeopathy is more popular in metro cities where awareness and education level of people are higher. It is further growing in big cities that shows its peoples choice. (Mr Ray are you sleeping).
Homeopathy is risky as it deprive people of ‘real treatment’ – No homeopaths are more sincere about peoples health than you. They take full use of investigations and keep overall health status of patient under observation. They also refer patients for surgery in cases surgery can heal the patient faster. When people are so aware that they can understand clinical studies don’t they understand what can help them better in achieving good health. They choose homeopathy as better health option.
Homeopathy is non effective – Compare medicinal treatment of conventional medicine and homeopathy, homeopathy scores higher. More important, homeopathy improves health status so prevents sickness in which conventional medicine fails miserably. And not to talk about huge side effects of conventional medicine which are a big problem.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Nisha, I do not believe that you work for free, so you are making a living from homeopathy.
You have proven nothing – you are just making unsubstantiated assertions that carry absolutely no weight here because they are not backed up with solid evedence.
The Indian government puts up with homeopathy because it cannot provide good health care for its huge population – the day it can this farce is finished there too. Please note that I am not an American, so don’t bother to tell me the short comings of their system, I don’t care.
We will outlast you here, it doesn’t matter how often you try and post this nonsense, one of us will answer, demanding that you back up what you say with facts, and nothing that you have written above is fact.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Everything I wrote was with evidence but you guys are intentionally blind. For sure you will outlast me because you will keep on ignoring facts ans repeatedly speak lie. You said in India homeopathy is alive because of poverty, alas again a lie. Poverty affects more villages where no body knows homeopathy. It is most popular in big metro cities that too in higher middle and higher income group which is highly educated and aware. So it is a choice. And you say India is not able to provide healthcare. Within its resources it is doing wonderful job. There are state run absolutely free hospital including tertiary care. No insurance required. So that why it is available and affordable to poorest. And you say India is not able to provide. In contrast you see those great countries where even well to do are finding it hard to buy insurance and they rush to India to get cheaper and readily available treatment. Infact India is providing healthcare to these great countries. Thats my great country. Homeopathy is alive for more than 250 years and is growing fast as people are becoming more aware and educated. Its peoples choice. In India homeopathic and conventional drs are not enemies as said by another ignorant. They coordinate well, refer to each other even treat each other as the case requires just like in China acupuncture is in mainstream along with conventional medicine. My job is done I have proved beyond doubt that homeopathy works and is effective healthcare option. As far as intentional blind people like you are concerned I dont care, keep rumbling anecdotes.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 8:34 am
I end what I started with -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Electromagnetic_signals_from_bacterial_DNA
did that say – agitated dilution in water God how come EMS from that.
remain blind you pseudo scientists.
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Nisha Singh said:
Has anyone except Montagier and that other Benveniste-associate replicated these results? Has this been published and peer reviewed and found to be scientifically solid?
Anyone can write an article. I(!) could write and article if I wanted to and in it claim that the moon is made of green cheeze and present data for it. But it means nothing until it has been reviewed and there is consensus it’s accurate and solid.
So… is it?
/Michael
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Ray1952 said:
Exactly. The biggest thing that threatens homeopaths is science and education. Ideally they would want a society as backward and ignorant as possible. The universities in India have been improving rapidly in recent years and every well qualified India doctor or scientist is a threat. If I were an Indian homeopath I’d too be very scared of progress.
DV82XL said:
Sadly, I think it will take far more than just good healthcare to put the homeopaths out of buisiness. It will probably help reduce their number and they may make slightly less money, but homeopathy and other quack practices are not gone in Canada, the US, the UK or Australia. All countries with cutting edge medicine. The homeopaths still find enough of a population to sustain themselves.
If you look at the UK, you can see that there has been some success by their lobby in getting laws passed that favor their schemes. In almost all countries they have managed to get politically favorable decisions on their products regulation or lack of regulation.
The homeopaths in India probably are fighting because they see the writing on the wall and they know their best bet could be to get legislation inked that will keep them viable even as people wake up.
Nisha Singh said:
Not poverty but ignorance. The two often go together, but there are also plenty of rich fools in the world who are gullible enough to be suckered into this as well.
Nisha Singh said:
So with the rise of the Indian middle class, India now has created its own class of naive yuppies who will fall for homeopathy, it seems. Welcome to the club.
Nisha Singh said:
First of all, let me be clear that I am not insulting India and I do agree that they are doing what they can with what they have and they are getting better. However, to claim that there are free hospitals in India that provide world-class care for free to anyone who walks in the door is just ridiculous.
I recognize that the system is doing all it can, but lets be honest here. If a hospital in India existed that would provide top quality care for free and had no limits or waiting, the line would be out the door and all the way to China and back.
I respect the Indian doctors who work so hard to try to improve their system, but the homeopaths are the ones who are holding it all back and making the improvements that much difficult.
India is the one country left that still has a very large problem with polio. Polio is something that can be eradicated by vaccination. It should be, but there are quacks out there who are jumping on the anti-vaccine bandwagon and who are claiming homeopathy can treat or prevent polio or any other disease and it’s false.
Nisha Singh said:
No. get your facts right. The whole shame was cooked up in Germany 211 years ago and I very much doubt it took root in India right away, so you’re really looking at less than 200 years. (Yes, I know and understand the history of homeopathy and the ways its been played.)
Nisha Singh said:
If they aren’t they should be. We do have some problems with that in the west too. Too often, doctors and medical institutions tolerate homeopathy because they consider it harmless and it at least pacifies patients who may not have any real problem.
This is a huge mistake. It may seem harmless because it does not kill or injure directly, but tolerating homeopathy is making a deal with the devil. It can and does harm by defrauding people and turning them away from good healthcare.
Nisha Singh said:
China is another country that has a massive problem with medical fraud, quacks and quack medicine. It’s amazing when you consider that the Chinese government is normally very heavy-handed with anyone who they think is committing fraud. In China, there are acupuncturists and homeopaths who get away with this crap, even under one of the most stronghanded governments in the world.
I’ve read some fascinating articles about it. Quack non-science based medicine has managed to get a very tight grip on the Chinese culture and it is so popular that trying to root it all out would create too much of an outcry for even the Chinese to keep down.
One thing I have to hand to quacks is that they do a good job with their PR and their politics. The fact that they can thrive in China is the ultimate proof of that. Things are improving though. As healthcare improves the quacks are feeling the squeeze. Medicine in China is a combination of real science based medicine and quack elixirs, but slowly and surely the scale is tipping.
Nisha Singh said:
These are facts. History, scientific arguments, political conditions etc are all facts. Studies are factual.
Do you know what an anecdote is? An anecdote is “I once saw someone improve after taking homeopathy” or “My cousin swears by it” or “My brother in law has seen hundreds of times it worked”
Quote Comment
October 4th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Nisha Singh said:
Gordon said:
In India, they have marble hospitals that look like 5 star hotels. That only the middle- and upper classes can afford.
I know, because I used them during my stay in India – I lived in Delhi for almost 5 years. They are expensive but terribly good. I have had MIR scans, a broken collar bone treated by an Oxford educated doctor, countless test etc. Fantastic doctors, exceptional treatment and incredible hospitals that look like something out of Xanadu.
Gordon said:
Correct. The public hospitals are an absolute disgrace. Visit at night, and you will see droves of patients lying outside waiting to get in.
Nisha Singh is either delusional or dishonest. Or, as I suspect, both.
Quote Comment
October 6th, 2009 at 4:31 am
seborgarsen said:
I don’t doubt that there are fantastic hospitals in India. The country has been a place for medical tourism. I also don’t doubt that there are some rich Indians who will buy homeopathic products and still take advantage of the excellent medical facilities in the country. (think of the US where there are rich celebs who will go to the best plastic surgeons in the world but also sleep with an energy crystal next to their bed)
But you can look at any industrial country that has good healthcare and you’ll see that this alone doesn’t kill off quackery.
As far as homeopathy goes: it doesn’t help the system at any level.
Quote Comment
July 10th, 2010 at 7:38 am
ULTRADILUTIONS of Belladona effective ???? against viral encephalitis. they must be kidding. how is that possible.
http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ajid/ajid6224-28.pdf
Quote Comment
July 10th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
…
Do the crazies like to come in waves or something?
All we need is Bruce and McGlashan to show up again and we’d really be able to get the party started.
Quote Comment
July 13th, 2010 at 1:46 am
Soon all those talking loud against homeopathy will be seen running for cover. Or may be in homeopathy clinic looking for ultradiluted medicines to correct their mental imbalance.
Quote Comment
July 13th, 2010 at 1:57 am
Nisha Singh said:
Soon there won’t be any homeopaths left to go to. The noose is tightening, and you all know it. Good riddance.
If I had my way all of you quacks would be rounded up to spend the rest of your lives in community service for your crimes – cleaning the toilets in real hospitals as prisoners of the state.
Quote Comment
July 13th, 2010 at 6:45 am
There you are. You can post only crap. Its good that world including scientists have realized the benefits of homeopathy in treating sickness and serving mankind. And you criminals of humanity belong to cleaning toilets in prisons serving as prisoners.
Quote Comment
July 13th, 2010 at 8:06 am
Nisha Singh said:
What in the world are you talking about, Nisha? The overwhelming trend at the moment is in favour of scientific medicine and against homeopathy and other baseless quack practices. The public reaction against the anti-vaxers here in Australia is just a prominent example of a wider recognition in the general community and legislative bodies of the immense damage people such as yourself have caused, of the misery and suffering you have callously inflicted on ignorant or desperate people. The noose is tightening. Frightening, isn’t it.
Quote Comment
July 13th, 2010 at 8:22 am
are you in a dream, its time to wake up to reality. homeopathy is growing with more acceptance even in real science.
Quote Comment
July 13th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Nisha Singh said:
“even in real science” Bit of a Freudian slip there Nisha?
Anyway the only one dreaming here is you; current events show that homeopathy is being pushed out in more places every day. And there is no body of legitimate science that supports this BS, no mater how often jackasses like you assert it.
Quote Comment
July 13th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Nisha Singh said:
I didn’t even get past the first paragraph of that article before experiencing a very severe eye roll. Any
“study” that starts out with such blatant appeals to politics and various conspiracy theories should be rejected from scientific publications simply based on the fact that it injects extraneous issues into the content.
that said, the quality of the publication only gets worse from there.
It seems to me that this “American Journal of Infectious Diseases” is nothing more than another attempt to get credibility for a legitimate-sounding internet based publication that is by no means a real scientific journal.
The actual Journal it may be trying to sound like is The Journal of Infectious Disease, which is American, but does not have “American” in the title and making Disease plural. The other major respected publications on the topic in the US would be “Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal.”
This kind of inventing of a dubious journal with an apparently very authoritative title is nothing new. I’ve seen it too many times to count. However, in this case, the title is so close, adding only the title “American” to the title of another publication that can be legitimately called the same thing, I think this may be grounds for some kind of legal action to stop this. I’m not entirely sure, but I’m thinking that perhaps I should send an email to the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who publishes the “Journal of Infectious Disease” and alert them to this misuse of their good name. Perhaps there is something they can do about it.
Quote Comment
July 14th, 2010 at 1:56 am
Nisha Singh said:
Nisha Singh said:
This is not an issue of dogma or society and certainly is not one where scientists are jumping to homeopathy.
I have but one objection to homeopathic treatments; they do not work!
Selling them is fraud. However, the only way to stop it is to get the word out. People who are honest and care about having accurate medical info are working to get the message out and show the population what homeopathy is all about. They are doing a good job and people are learning. For the homeopaths, this is the ultimate nightmare!
Quote Comment
July 14th, 2010 at 2:21 am
I feel sorry for your science teacher. You don’t know ABC of science. You guys are good only in writing crap. Oh yes you are paid for this.
Quote Comment
July 14th, 2010 at 3:11 am
Nisha Singh said:
Pathetic
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Aickin M. The end of biomedical journals: there is madness in their methods. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2005; 11 (5):755-7.
Aickin M. Participant-centered analysis in complementary and alternative medicine comparative trials. J Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2003; 9 (6):949-57.
Aickin M. Separation tests for early-phase CAM comparative trials. Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine 2004; 1 (4):225-31.
Becker-Witt C, Weibhuhn T.E.R., Ludtke, R., Willich, S.N. Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2003; 9 (1):113-32.
Bell IR. All evidence is equal, but some evidence is more equal than others: can logic prevail over emotion in the homeopathy debate? J Altern Complement Med. 2005; 11 (5):763-9.
Bell IR. Evidence-based homeopathy: empirical questions and methodological considerations for homeopathic clinical research. American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine 2003; 96 (1):17-31.
Bell IR, Baldwin CM, Schwartz GE. Translating a nonlinear systems theory model for homeopathy into empirical tests. Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine. 2002a; 8 (3):58-66.
Bell IR, Caspi O, Schwartz GE et al. Integrative medicine and systemic outcomes research: issues in the emergence of a new model for primary health care. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2002b; 162 (2):133-40.
Bell IR, Koithan M. Models for the study of whole systems. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006; 5 (4):293-307.
Bell IR, Lewis DA, 2nd, Brooks AJ et al. Individual differences in response to randomly assigned active individualized homeopathic and placebo treatment in fibromyalgia: implications of a double-blinded optional crossover design. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2004a; 10 (2):269-83.
Bell IR, Lewis DA, 2nd, Brooks AJ et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo. Rheumatology 2004b; 43 (5):577-82.
Bell IR, Lewis DA, 2nd, Lewis SE et al. EEG alpha sensitization in individualized homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia. International Journal of Neuroscience 2004c; 114 (9):1195-220.
Bell IR, Lewis DAI, Schwartz GE et al. Electroencephalographic cordance patterns distinguish exceptional clinical responders with fibromyalgia to individualized homeopathic medicines. J Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2004d; 10 (2):285-99.
Bell IR, Walsh, M., Russek, L.G.S., Schwartz, G.E.R. Proposed applications of conventional research concepts and tools to homeopathic clinical research. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1999; 92 (3):111-28.
Bellavite P. Complexity science and homeopathy: a synthetic overview. Homeopathy: the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 2003; 92 (4):203-12.
Bellavite P, Conforti A, Pontarollo F et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 2. Cells of the immune system and inflammation. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2006; 3 (1):13-24.
Bellavite P, Signorini, A. The Emerging Science of Homeopathy. Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology. 2nd ed. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books; 2002. 408 pp. p.
Bertani S, Lussignoli S, Andrioli G et al. Dual effects of a homeopathic mineral complex on carrageenan-induced oedema in rats. British Homoeopathic Journal 1999; 88 (3):101-5.
Betti L, Lazzarato L, Trebbi G et al. Effects of homeopathic arsenic on tobacco plant resistance to tobacco mosaic virus. Theoretical suggestions about system variability, based on a large experimental data set. Homeopathy 2003; 92 (4):195-202.
Bikker AP, Mercer SW, Reilly D. A pilot prospective study on the consultation and relational empathy, patient enablement, and health changes over 12 months in patients going to the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital. J Altern Complement Med. 2005; 11 (4):591-600.
Biswas SJ, Pathak S, Bhattacharjee N et al. Efficacy of the potentized homeopathic drug, Carcinosin 200, fed alone and in combination with another drug, Chelidonium 200, in amelioration of p-dimethylaminoazobenzene-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11 (5):839-54.
Bootzin RR, Bailey ET. Understanding placebo, nocebo, and iatrogenic treatment effects. J Clin Psychology 2005; 61 (7):871-80.
Brizzi M, Lazzarato L, Nani D et al. A biostatistical insight into the As(2)O(3) high dilution effects on the rate and variability of wheat seedling growth. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2005; 12 (5):277-83.
Caspi O, Bell IR. One size does not fit all: aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) as a conceptual framework for outcome research. Part I. What is ATI research? Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2004a; 10 (3):580-6.
Caspi O, Bell IR. One size does not fit all: aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) as a conceptual framework for outcome research. Part II. Research designs and their application. . Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2004b; 10 (4):698-705.
Caulfield T, DeBow S. A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2005; 5 (1):12.
Chaplin MF. The Memory of Water: an overview. Homeopathy. 2007; 96 (3):143-50
Chapman EH, Weintraub RJ, Milburn MA et al. Homeopathic treatment of mild traumatic brain injury: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 1999; 14 (6):521-42.
Coffey DS. Self-organization, complexity, and chaos: the new biology for medicine. Nature Medicine. 1998; 4 (8):882-5.
Conforti A, Bellavite P, Bertani S et al. Rat models of acute inflammation: a randomized controlled study on the effects of homeopathic remedies. BMC Complement Altern Med 2007; 7:1.
Dean ME, Coulter MK, Fisher P et al. Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT. J Altern Complement Med 2007; 13 (1):19-23.
Eizayaga FX, Aguejouf O, Belon P et al. Platelet aggregation in portal hypertension and its modification by ultra-low doses of aspirin. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb 2005; 34 (1):29-34.
Eizayaga FX, Aguejouf O, Desplat V et al. Modifications produced by indomethacin and L-NAME in the effect of ultralow-dose aspirin on platelet activity in portal hypertension. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb 2006; 35 (5):357-63.
Elia V, Napoli E, Germano R. The ‘Memory of Water’: an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions. Homeopathy. 2007; 96 (3):163-9.
Elia V, Niccoli, M. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 2004; 75:815-36.
Elia V, Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1999; 879:241-8.
Endler PC, Pongratz W, Kastberger G et al. The effect of highly diluted agitated thyroxine on the climbing activity of frogs. Vet Hum Toxicol 1994; 36 (1):56-9.
Endler PC, Pongratz W, Smith CW et al. Non-molecular information transfer from thyroxine to frogs with regard to homeopathic toxicology. Veterinary & Human Toxicology. 1995; 37 (3):259-60.
Endler PC, Pongratz, W., van Wijk, R., Wiegant, F.A.C., Waltl, K., Gehrer, M., Hilgers, H. A zoological example on ultra high dilution research. Energetic coupling between the dilution and the organism in a model of amphibia. In: PC Endler, Schulte, J., editor, translator and editor Ultra High Dilution. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994; p. 39-68.
Fisher P. Homeopathy and The Lancet. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2006; 3 (1):145-7.
Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K et al. Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in hyperactive children: treatment procedure leads to an unconventional study design Experience with open-label homeopathic treatment preceding the Swiss ADHD placebo controlled, randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial. Homeopathy 2007; 96 (1):35-41.
Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005; 164 (12):758-67.
Frei H, Thurneysen A, von Ammon K. Methodological difficulties in homeopathic treatment of children with ADD/ADHD. J Altern Complement Med 2006a; 12 (2):104; author reply
Frei H, Thurneysen A. Treatment for hyperactive children: homeopathy and methylphenidate compared in a family setting. British Homoeopathic Journal 2001; 90 (4):183-8.
Frei H, von Ammon K, Thurneysen A. Treatment of hyperactive children: increased efficiency through modifications of homeopathic diagnostic procedure. Homeopathy. 2006b; 95 (3):163-70.
Frenkel M, Hermoni D. Effects of homeopathic intervention on medication consumption in atopic and allergic disorders. Altern Ther Health Med 2002; 8 (1):76-9.
Goldstein MS, Glik, D. Use of and satisfaction with homeopathy in a patient population. Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine 1998; 4 (2):60-5.
Guthlin C, Lange O, Walach H. Measuring the effects of acupuncture and homoeopathy in general practice: an uncontrolled prospective documentation approach. BMC Public Health 2004; 4 (1):4.
Haidvogl M, Riley DS, Heger M, Brien S, Jong M, Fischer M, Lewith GT, Jansen G, Thurneysen AE. Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: a comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007; 2;7:7.
Honda K, Jacobson JS. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among United States adults: the influences of personality, coping strategies, and social support. Preventive Medicine 2005; 40 (1):46-53.
Hyland ME, Lewith GT. Oscillatory effects in a homeopathic clinical trial: an explanation using complexity theory, and implications for clinical practice. Homeopathy 2002; 91 (3):145-9.
Jacobs J, Jimenez LM, Gloyd SS et al. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics. 1994; 93 (5):719-25.
Jacobs J, Jimenez LM, Malthouse S et al. Homeopathic treatment of acute childhood diarrhea: results from a clinical trial in Nepal. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2000; 6 (2):131-9.
Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M et al. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2003; 22 (3):229-34.
Jacobs J, Williams AL, Girard C et al. Homeopathy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a pilot randomized-controlled trial. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11 (5):799-806.
Jonas W, Lin Y, Tortella F. Neuroprotection from glutamate toxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate. Neuroreport 2001; 12 (2):335-9.
Jonas W, Lin, Y., Williams, A., Tortella, F., Tuma, R. Treatment of experimental stroke with low-dose glutamate and homeopathic Arnica montana. Perfusion 1999a; 12:452-62.
Jonas WB. Do homeopathic nosodes protect against infection? An experimental test. Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine 1999b; 5 (5):36-40.
Jonas WB. The future of hormesis: what is the clinical relevance to hormesis? Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2001; 31 (4-5):655-8.
Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2003; 138 (5):393-9.
Jutte R, Riley D. A review of the use and role of low potencies in homeopathy. Complement Ther Med 2005; 13 (4):291-6.
Kundu SN, Mitra K, Khuda Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potentized homeopathic drug (Arsenicum-Aalbum-30) in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: IV. Pathological changes, protein profiles, and content of DNA and RNA. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2000; 8 (3):157-65.
Lamont J. Homeopathic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. A controlled study. British Homoeopathic Journal 1997; 86:196-200.
Langman MJS. Homeopathy trials: reason for good ones but are they warranted? Lancet 1997; 350:825.
Lewith GT, Watkins AD, Hyland ME et al. Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ 2002; 324 (7336):520-3
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350:834-43.
Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D et al. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture. International Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 30 (3):526-31.
Lussignoli S, Bertani S, Metelmann H et al. Effect of Traumeel S, a homeopathic formulation, on blood-induced inflammation in rats. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1999; 7 (4):225-30.
Mallick P, Mallick JC, Guha B et al. Ameliorating effect of microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum Album, on arsenic-induced toxicity in mice. BMC Complement Altern Med 2003; 3:7.
Marotta D, Marini A, Banaudha K et al. Non-linear effects of cycloheximide in glutamate-treated cultured rat cerebellar neurons. Neurotoxicology. 2002; 23 (3):307-12.
Marotta D, Marini, A, Banaudha, K., Maharaj, S., Jonas, W.B. Nonlinear effects of glutamate and KCl on glutamate toxicity in cultured rat cerebellar neurons. International Journal of Neuroscience 2003; 113:45-56.
Mathie RT. The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature. Homeopathy: the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 2003; 92:84-91.
Mathie RT, Hansen L, Elliott MF et al. Outcomes from homeopathic prescribing in veterinary practice: a prospective, research-targeted, pilot study. Homeopathy 2007; 96 (1):27-34.
Milgrom LR. Are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) redundant for testing the efficacy of homeopathy? A critique of RCT methodology based on entanglement theory. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11 (5):831-8.
Neville-Smith R. Community hospital homeopathy clinic: audit of the first 12 months activity. British Homoeopathic Journal 1999; 88 (1):20-3.
Oberbaum M, Singer SR, Vithoulkas G. The colour of the homeopathic improvement: the multidimensional nature of the response to homeopathic therapy. Homeopathy. 2005; 94 (3):196-9.
Oberbaum M, Vithoulkas G, Van Haselen R. Clinical trials of classical homeopathy: reflections on appropriate research designs. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2003; 9 (1):105-11.
Oberbaum M, Yaniv I, Ben-Gal Y et al. A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication TRAUMEEL S in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation. Cancer 2001; 92 (3):684-90.
Rao ML, Roy R, Bell IR et al. The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy. Homeopathy 2007; 96 (3):175-82.
Reilly D, Taylor, M.A., Beattie, N.G.M., Campbell, J.H., McSharry, C., Aitchison, T.C., Carter, R., Stevenson, R.D. Is evidence for homeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994; 344:1601-6.
Relton C, Weatherley-Jones E. Homeopathy service in a National Health Service community menopause clinic: audit of clinical outcomes. Journal of the British Menopause Society. 2005; 11 (2):72-3.
Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A: Statistical mechanics and its applications. 2003; 323:67-74.
Riley D, Fischer M, Singh B et al. Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcomes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2001; 7 (2):149-59.
Robinson N, Donaldson J, Watt H. Auditing outcomes and costs of integrated complementary medicine provision–the importance of length of follow up. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2006; 12 (4):249-57.
Roy R, Tiller W, Bell IR et al. The Structure of Liquid Water: Novel Insights from Materials Research and Potential Relevance to Homeopathy. Materials Research Innovation 2005; 9 (4):557-608.
Ruiz-Vega G, Perez-Ordaz L, Proa-Flores P et al. An evaluation of Coffea cruda effect on rats. British Homoeopathic Journal 2000; 89 (3):122-6.
Ruiz-Vega G, Perez-Ordaz, L., Leon-Hueramo, O., Cruz-Vazquez, E., Sanchez-Diaz, N. Comparative effect of Coffea cruda potencies on rats. Homeopathy 2002; 91:80-4.
Ruiz-Vega G, Poitevin B, Perez-Ordaz L. Histamine at high dilution reduces spectral density in delta band in sleeping rats. Homeopathy 2005; 94 (2):86-91.
Ruiz G, Torres JL, Michel O et al. Homeopathic effect on heart rate variability. British Homoeopathic Journal 1999; 88 (3):106-11.
Ruiz G, Torres, J.L. Homeopathic effect on the sleep pattern of rats. British Homoeopathic Journal 1997; 86:201-6.
Sevar R. Audit of outcome in 455 consecutive patients treated with homeopathic medicines. Homeopathy. 2005; 94 (4):215-21.
Sevar R. Audit of outcome in 829 consecutive patients treated with homeopathic medicines. British Homoeopathic Journal 2000; 89 (4):178-87.
Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet. 2005; 366 (9487):726-32.
Sukul A, Sarkar P, Sinhababu SP et al. Altered solution structure of alcoholic medium of potentized Nux vomica underlies its antialcoholic effect. British Homoeopathic Journal 2000; 89 (2):73-7.
Sukul A, Sinhabau SP, Sukul NC. Reduction of alcohol induced sleep time in albino mice by potentized Nux vomica prepared with 90% ethanol. British Homoeopathic Journal 1999; 88 (2):58-61.
Sukul NC, Bala, S.K., Bhattacharyya, B. Prolonged cataleptogenic effects of potentized homoeopathic drugs. Psychopharmacology 1986; 89:338-9.
Sukul NC, De A, Sukul A et al. Potentized Mercuric chloride and Mercuric iodide enhance alpha-amylase activity in vitro. Homeopathy: the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 2002; 91 (4):217-20.
Sukul NC, Ghosh S, Sinhababu SP. Reduction in the number of infective Trichinella spiralis larvae in mice by use of homeopathic drugs. Forschende Komplementarmedizin und Klassische Naturheilkunde 2005; 12 (4):202-5.
Sukul NC, Ghosh S, Sinhababu SP et al. Strychnos nux-vomica extract and its ultra-high dilution reduce voluntary ethanol intake in rats. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2001; 7 (2):187-93.
Szeto AL, Rollwagen F, Jonas WB. Rapid induction of protective tolerance to potential terrorist agents: a systematic review of low- and ultra-low dose research. [Review] [19 refs]. Homeopathy: the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy 2004; 93 (4):173-8.
Thompson E, Barron S, Spence D. A preliminary audit investigating remedy reactions including adverse events in routine homeopathic practice. Homeopathy: Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 2004; 93 (4):203-9.
Thompson EA, Oxon, B.A., Montgomery, A., Douglas, D., Reilly, D. A Pilot, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Individualized Homeopathy for Symptoms of Estrogen Withdrawal in Breast-Cancer Survivors. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2005; 11 (1):13-20.
Thompson EA, Reillly D. The homeopathic approach to symptom control in the cancer patient: a prospective observational study. Palliative Medicine. 2002; 16 (3):227-33.
Tiller WA. On chemical medicine, thermodynamics, and homeopathy. J Altern Complement Med 2006; 12 (7):685-93.
Torres JL. Homeopathic effect: a network perspective. Homeopathy: the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 2002a; 91 (2):89-94.
Torres JL. On the physical basis of succussion. Homeopathy 2002b; 91 (4):221-4.
Torres JL, Ruiz MAG. Stochastic resonance and the homeopathic effect. British Homoeopathic Journal 1996; 85:134-40.
van Wassenhoven M, Ives G. An observational study of patients receiving homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004; 93 (1):3-11.
van Wijk R, Bosman S, van Wijk EP. Thermoluminescence in ultra-high dilution research. J Altern Complement Med 2006; 12 (5):437-43.
Van Wijk R, Wiegant FA. The similia principle as a therapeutic strategy: a research program on stimulation of self-defense in disordered mammalian cells. Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine. 1997; 3 (2):33-8.
van Wijk R, Wiegant, F.A.C. Cultured Mammalian Cells in Homeopathy Research. The Similia Principle in Self-Recovery. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht; 1994.
Vandenbroucke JP. Homeopathy trials: going nowhere. Lancet 1997; 350:824.
Vickers AJ, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3:CD001957.
Weatherley-Jones E, Nicholl JP, Thomas KJ et al. A randomised, controlled triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2004a; 56:189-97.
Weatherley-Jones E, Thompson E, Thomas K. The placebo-controlled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine: observations from research experience of individualised homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy. 2004b; 93 (4):186-9.
Witt C, Keil T, Selim D, Roll S, Vance W, Wegscheider K, Willich SN. Outcome and costs of homoeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: a comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders. Complement Ther Med. 2005a; 13 (2):79-86.
Witt C, Ludtke R, Weisshuhn TE, Willich SN. High homeopathic potencies are different from potentized solvent when investigated with the REDEM technology. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2005b; 12 (1):6-13.
Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007; 15 (2):128-38.
Witt CM, Ludtke R, Baur R et al. Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. BMC Public Health 2005; 5:115.
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Close your eyes tight. Do not dare to see evidence.
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 9:30 am
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/nobel-laureate-gives-homeopathy-a-boost/story-e6frg8y6-1225887772305
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Stop spamming.
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Cristal Sumner, of the British Homeopathic Association, said Montagnier’s work gave homeopathy “a true scientific ethos”.
Cristal Sumner… Isn’t she also a porn star? Great porn name in any case!
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Nisha Singh said:
Open your eyes… the evidence you think you see, is a fantasy… a dream of yours.
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Nisha Singh said:
By now you must realize that nobody here gives a damn about ‘evidence’ supporting homeopathy, in homeopathic journals. You can site all the proof from those sources you want and they will all be dismissed for the rubbish that they are.
However the more interesting question is why do you bother to make these arguments on the back pages of a sceptic’s forum? Do you honestly think that those of us that still follow this thread will be convinced? The lead article reports that the World Health Organization has rejected homeopathy, is any argument you present here, to hard bitten sceptics going to change that? What do you expect to gain here? The more you post, the deeper we hold you in contempt. I can’t see the possibility of a win here for you any time soon.
Quote Comment
July 15th, 2010 at 9:46 am
DV82XL said:
Maybe he it trying to play this game? His problem is of course that he’s really lousy at it.
Personaly I think he’s just venting frustration of getting his faith doubted. Believers tend to have strong allergies against doubt, especially when the doubt is heavilly laced with scientific evidence.
/M
P.S: If you havn’t watched the rest of the movie “Thank You For Smoking”, do it. Absolutely brilliant.
Quote Comment
July 16th, 2010 at 12:40 am
I told you, its not that you cant see benefits of homeopathy but you are paid to write against. So you will deny everything that supports homeopathy. It was not lack of homeopathy all these years, it was lack of scientific development that working of homeopathy could not be proved. With better technology homeopathy is getting proved. And it is proved that you are paid insane criminal working against interest of humanity. But you cant kill truth just like you could not kill Jesus.
Quote Comment
July 16th, 2010 at 12:55 am
Nisha Singh said:
I get no money to write against homeopathy however if someone is interested in paying me to do so I would be pleased if you would drop me a note in comments on my page. You can get there by clicking my name above. My rates for short prose and essays are reasonable and accommodation can be made if you are offering regular work.
Obviously from the number of times I have been accused of being a paid shill in this subject and several other related topics, it can be plainly seen that my work is of commercial quality and is consistently of high standards. I look forward to hearing from prospective clients.
Quote Comment
July 16th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Nisha Singh said:
*sigh*
Not this **** again. No, I am not paid by anyone to write anything on this site. I’m sure that there’s no way I can prove that to the satisfaction of a committed enough nutball.
Nisha Singh said:
Well, first I’m not a Christian, but as far as proving homeopathy goes, I’ll point out a couple of things. The theory and rules behind how homeopathy supposedly works is patently absurd and only a few thought experiments are required to show that it has some insurmountable paradoxes.
However, that having been said, science does not require that you know *how* something works in order to know that it does work.
I can give an example. Lithium salts are the current standard for treatment of bipolar. For decades they have been shown safe and effective in stabilizing mood and having some anti-psychotic properties. We know this is the case thanks to volumes of high quality studies. However, we’re not entirely sure why the work or how the mechanism of action works. In the early years, it’s fair to say we had no idea why lithium salts worked so well. Today, we have some pretty good hypothesizes, but we’re still not entirely certain which mechanism of action is the important one.
Quote Comment