Homeopathy: "it's Just Water!"

Homeopathy: "it's Just Water!"

There are 189 comments on the Men's News Daily story from Mar 7, 2010, titled Homeopathy: "it's Just Water!". In it, Men's News Daily reports that:

Homeopathy: "IT'S JUST WATER!" In the comments on Friday , somebody was sneering about "BIG PHARM" . Dara O'Briain is an Irish comedian, but he knows a thing or two about rational thought and bullshit forms of "medicine."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Men's News Daily.

NObamarama

New Castle, PA

#84 Mar 24, 2010
BS, homeopathy is nothing more than quackery based upon junk science:

Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Review of Epidemiology 38:139-142, 1990

-In 1990, an article in Review of Epidemiology analyzed 40 randomized trials that had compared homeopathic treatment with standard treatment, a placebo, or no treatment. The authors concluded that all but three of the trials had major flaws in their design and that only one of those three had reported a positive result. The authors concluded that there is no evidence that homeopathic treatment has any more value than a placebo.

Jacob J and others. Treatment of childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 93:719-725, 1994.

Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics 96:961-964, 1995.

-In 1994, the journal Pediatrics published an article claiming that homeopathic treatment had been demonstrated to be effective against mild cases of diarrhea among Nicaraguan children. The claim was based on findings that, on certain days, the "treated" group had fewer loose stools than the placebo group. However, Sampson and London noted:(1) the study used an unreliable and unproved diagnostic and therapeutic scheme,(2) there was no safeguard against product adulteration,(3) treatment selection was arbitrary,(4) the data were oddly grouped and contained errors and inconsistencies,(5) the results had questionable clinical significance, and (6) there was no public health significance because the only remedy needed for mild childhood diarrhea is adequate fluid intake to prevent or correct dehydration.

In 1995, Prescrire International, a French journal that evaluates pharmaceutical products, published a literature review that concluded: As homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with variable outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their placebo-responsiveness), these treatments are widely considered to have an effect in some patients. However, despite the large number of comparative trials carried out to date there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo therapy given in identical conditions.

NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. Loma Linda, Calif.: National Council Against Health Fraud, 1994.

-The study concluded that most homeopathic research is worthless, and no homeopathic product has been proven effective for any therapeutic purpose. The National Council Against Health Fraud has warned that "the sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions about the trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers."
K C Chandran Nambiar wrote:
Yes it is water! It is molecular imprinted water!
ikz

New Delhi, India

#86 Mar 24, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You throw your dead in the Ganges. You wash your disgusting lepers in the Ganges. Cow sh1t runs in rivers through your city street.
Of course, to YOU it seem perfectly clean. That's because you are so thuroughly rotten to the core, you couldn't tell good from evil if you had to.
You are LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE. You need to stop.
I understand that you didn't have an education which afforded you with tools like logic and scientific deduction. That's not a valid excuse for you to continue hurting people.
The conventional medicine requires extensive support from the environment to show direct results. The chemicals embark on a destructive spree of the virus/bacteria. In this period, the chemicals also destroy the anti bodies developed by the immune system to combat the disease.

This is a period when the patient is at serious risk. He is being treated for one disease, his defences are down and if the environment is not clean he is sure to contact another and die. I recently saw a close relative die of pneumonia while being treated of cancer!

So let us see what is in store:

Many countries are showing dramatic improvement in economic conditions. The use of conventional drugs is expected to increase as money flows into the pockets of a section of population. For countries with large population, the sanitary and environment conditions will take a long time to include everyone. There will be a period initially, when there will be haves and have-nots. In these countries the rich and the economically poor will live side by side and mix on a regular basis. The poor could be working as a help in the rich household. The poor, because of their living conditions will be exposed at anytime to a number of virus and bacteria – many of these from animals and birds! Because of regular exposure, the poor’s immune system would be able to defend him, but the rich, if recovering from an illness, under influence of conventional drugs and a crashed immune system, would present himself as an unknowing welcome host and a new cross over virus or bacteria will develop. The virus, if promoting a disease, will adapt to the human body system and a new disease will start with a new name - sounds familiar? Which countries come to your mind? Which new exotic disease are you looking forward to? What is the root cause of this problem?

If the tracks are laid in the wrong direction there is no way the train can go in the right direction! The investigative tools and recording systems are improving and therefore the drug life because of side effects will go down. The fear of lawsuits will force companies to invest more in research. Both conditions combined together will increase cost of drugs manifold. But there will be no improvement in medicinal capabilities of these drugs – if the basis is incorrect, results would also be so. You cannot work against the human immune system and claim victory against disease. For each one disease supposedly removed from the face of the earth, you will see two new diseases and one variant of the old one.
ikz

Delhi, India

#87 Mar 26, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You throw your dead in the Ganges. You wash your disgusting lepers in the Ganges. Cow sh1t runs in rivers through your city street.
Of course, to YOU it seem perfectly clean. That's because you are so thuroughly rotten to the core, you couldn't tell good from evil if you had to.
You are LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE. You need to stop.
I understand that you didn't have an education which afforded you with tools like logic and scientific deduction. That's not a valid excuse for you to continue hurting people.
Rather surprisingly what you mixed in the Ganges is all bio-degradeable. So the river woulkd become clean on its own.(Remember Katrina typhoon). What do you think would have happened?

But if you mix your drugs, a big effort will be required to clean the river. We are facing this problem.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#88 Mar 26, 2010
ikz wrote:
<quoted text>
Rather surprisingly what you mixed in the Ganges is all bio-degradeable..
Yes, ROTTING CORPSES OF DEAD INDIANS are all bio-degradeble.

However, you shouldn't drink tea made from them.
C Redd

Andover, NJ

#89 Mar 26, 2010
NObamarama wrote:
BS, homeopathy is nothing more than quackery based upon junk science:
Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Review of Epidemiology 38:139-142, 1990
-In 1990, an article in Review of Epidemiology analyzed 40 randomized trials that had compared homeopathic treatment with standard treatment, a placebo, or no treatment. The authors concluded that all but three of the trials had major flaws in their design and that only one of those three had reported a positive result. The authors concluded that there is no evidence that homeopathic treatment has any more value than a placebo.

Jacob J and others. Treatment of childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 93:719-725, 1994.
Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics 96:961-964, 1995.
-In 1994, the journal Pediatrics published an article claiming that homeopathic treatment had been demonstrated to be effective against mild cases of diarrhea among Nicaraguan children. The claim was based on findings that, on certain days, the "treated" group had fewer loose stools than the placebo group. However, Sampson and London noted:(1) the study used an unreliable and unproved diagnostic and therapeutic scheme,(2) there was no safeguard against product adulteration,(3) treatment selection was arbitrary,(4) the data were oddly grouped and contained errors and inconsistencies,(5) the results had questionable clinical significance, and (6) there was no public health significance because the only remedy needed for mild childhood diarrhea is adequate fluid intake to prevent or correct dehydration.
In 1995, Prescrire International, a French journal that evaluates pharmaceutical products, published a literature review that concluded: As homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with variable outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their placebo-responsiveness), these treatments are widely considered to have an effect in some patients. However, despite the large number of comparative trials carried out to date there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo therapy given in identical conditions.
NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. Loma Linda, Calif.: National Council Against Health Fraud, 1994.
-The study concluded that most homeopathic research is worthless, and no homeopathic product has been proven effective for any therapeutic purpose. The National Council Against Health Fraud has warned that "the sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions about the trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers."
<quoted text>
Your claims are quite interesting considering that there are 150+ plus methodologically reliable, controlled studies published in at least 24 international and national conventional journals proving that homeopathy works beyond placebo.

The most recent ground-breaking study done on breast cancer at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Texas U (one of the US's most highly respected cancer centers) shows that homeopathy kills breast cancer cells. This is the second study done at M.D. Anderson proving that homeopathy is capable of killing cancer cells--and with damaging surrounding cells or destroying the immune system.

www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/36/2/395

For a case of a brain tumor regressed 100% with homeopathy alone see:

www.telegraphindia.com/1040124/asp/calcutta/s...

for case records of 48 cancer cases see:

www.drpbanerji.com/cancer.htm

for other studies see:

www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-...
C Redd

Andover, NJ

#90 Mar 26, 2010
NObamarama wrote:
BS, homeopathy is nothing more than quackery based upon junk science:
Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Review of Epidemiology 38:139-142, 1990
-In 1990, an article in Review of Epidemiology analyzed 40 randomized trials that had compared homeopathic treatment with standard treatment, a placebo, or no treatment. The authors concluded that all but three of the trials had major flaws in their design and that only one of those three had reported a positive result. The authors concluded that there is no evidence that homeopathic treatment has any more value than a placebo.
Jacob J and others. Treatment of childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 93:719-725, 1994.
Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics 96:961-964, 1995.
-In 1994, the journal Pediatrics published an article claiming that homeopathic treatment had been demonstrated to be effective against mild cases of diarrhea among Nicaraguan children. The claim was based on findings that, on certain days, the "treated" group had fewer loose stools than the placebo group. However, Sampson and London noted:(1) the study used an unreliable and unproved diagnostic and therapeutic scheme,(2) there was no safeguard against product adulteration,(3) treatment selection was arbitrary,(4) the data were oddly grouped and contained errors and inconsistencies,(5) the results had questionable clinical significance, and (6) there was no public health significance because the only remedy needed for mild childhood diarrhea is adequate fluid intake to prevent or correct dehydration.
In 1995, Prescrire International, a French journal that evaluates pharmaceutical products, published a literature review that concluded: As homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with variable outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their placebo-responsiveness), these treatments are widely considered to have an effect in some patients. However, despite the large number of comparative trials carried out to date there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo therapy given in identical conditions.
NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. Loma Linda, Calif.: National Council Against Health Fraud, 1994.
-The study concluded that most homeopathic research is worthless, and no homeopathic product has been proven effective for any therapeutic purpose. The National Council Against Health Fraud has warned that "the sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions about the trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers."
<quoted text>
The National Council Against Health Fraud is a UK shill for the drug industry used to protect big business. Quackwatch was another shill used by the AMA. Stephen Barrett was debunked in 40 law suits which he, himself, initiated and every one of which he lost. During the course of the law suits he admitted that he never passed the board exams even though he gave evidence in numerous cases as an expert. He now lives in Braintree, MA, and works out of an ear piercing and tattoo parlor. He can't even afford an office for his "records"! Other shills are Campaign Against Health Fraud (UK) and CSICOP. The AMA and allopathic industry uses these shills to cover up the fact that conventional drugs are the real quack medicines. In fact, these quack medicines plus conventional care claim upwards of 784,000 American lives EVERY YEAR.

www.whale.to/p/quacks.html

www.whale.to/a/null9.html

Nobamarama appears to be protesting President Obama. Strange considering that President Obama's insurance reform bill (and it IS insurance reform, NOT health care reform) despite the fact that it pushes billions of more dollars into the allopathic drug industry it would not otherwise have gotten.
Mark

Australia

#91 Mar 26, 2010
Better watch out C Redd under British libel laws you could be sued for making false statements like that.

I bet you are a practising homeopath, a normal person couldn't come up with amount of BS you do.
ikz

New Delhi, India

#92 Mar 26, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, ROTTING CORPSES OF DEAD INDIANS are all bio-degradeble.
However, you shouldn't drink tea made from them.
Sure, they are bio-degradeable. What do they do in your country? You follow the practise Mark defined for conventional drugs the are ouside the shelf life?

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#93 Mar 27, 2010
C Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claims are quite interesting considering that there are 150+ plus methodologically reliable, controlled studies published in at least 24 international and national conventional journals proving that homeopathy works beyond placebo.
You keep posting this lie as if stating it and restating it will suddenly make it true.

I have yet to look at even one of your links, so here's what I am going to do. I'm going to pick one at random and evaluate it.

Here's what I predict I will find: Non-double blind and/or tiny sample size and/or no control group.

Let's see.
So, I've examined this "Study". Here's what I found.

THIS IS A NEWSPAPER STORY NOT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY!!!!!!!

Further, googling the patient name, brain tumor and homeopathy DOESN'T EVEN FIND _THIS_ STORY, let alone anything to support it.

Basically what you have here is a story someone made up. It's like Elvis has a black baby with Oprah. I've seen that in the "newspaper" too, also no evidence.

Time for you to put up or shut up. Give us at least ONE STANDARD SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

That means, DOUBLE BLIND, SIGNIFICANT SAMPLE SIZE, CONTROL GROUP, CLEARLY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS, REPEATED INDEPENDENTLY.

Got _ONE_ example?
ikz

New Delhi, India

#94 Mar 28, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep posting this lie as if stating it and restating it will suddenly make it true.
I have yet to look at even one of your links, so here's what I am going to do. I'm going to pick one at random and evaluate it.
Here's what I predict I will find: Non-double blind and/or tiny sample size and/or no control group.
Let's see.
<quoted text>
So, I've examined this "Study". Here's what I found.
THIS IS A NEWSPAPER STORY NOT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY!!!!!!!
Further, googling the patient name, brain tumor and homeopathy DOESN'T EVEN FIND _THIS_ STORY, let alone anything to support it.
Basically what you have here is a story someone made up. It's like Elvis has a black baby with Oprah. I've seen that in the "newspaper" too, also no evidence.
Time for you to put up or shut up. Give us at least ONE STANDARD SCIENTIFIC STUDY.
That means, DOUBLE BLIND, SIGNIFICANT SAMPLE SIZE, CONTROL GROUP, CLEARLY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS, REPEATED INDEPENDENTLY.
Got _ONE_ example?
Yoiu have somthing to say about post #86
Mark

Australia

#95 Mar 28, 2010
ikz - some more study for you: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/11/26/f-w...
"The underpinning of modern medicine is evidence. Our underlying doctrine is not faith in previous authors, but a respectful skepticism. The reason is quite simple: our decisions matter. Every choice, even a choice to do nothing, has potential benefits and risks. Our patients expect that before any therapy or course of action is prescribed the nature of these risks and benefits are known, that there is reason to believe the plan of action is sound, that there is something more than the writings of long dead medical philosophers supporting us.
In other words, that there is proof.
Many alternative health practitioners on the other hand hold, oddly enough, to tradition: the words of German physician Samuel Hahnemann, for example, who is generally recognized as the father of homeopathy, and who died in 1843. That was four years before Ignaz Semmelweis recognized the first example of the germ theory of illness in human beings. We shouldn’t confuse old theories with being knowledge based; Hahnemann died before he could understand that bacteria and viruses cause the diseases he was trying to treat. His attempts to find cures were a reaction to the purging and bloodletting that he saw being practised by his contemporaries. Compared with those treatments, which very often caused worse illness or even death, homeopathy looked pretty good.
These days, though, the fundamental principles of homeopathy seem pretty odd, to say the least. According to the Canadian Society of Homeopathy website — and other sources — one basis of homeopathy is "like cures like," stated simply the idea that the symptoms caused by a substance are those that it will treat.
If your nose and eyes are running, a derivative made from onion might somehow be of benefit. Extending this theory, presumably if your heart was beating too fast, taking a drug that makes it beat faster would somehow make it beat slower. No evidence is offered for this concept; rather, again, because the practice has been around for hundreds of years (there are "references to homeopathy in ancient writing"), it is considered valid.
By the same argument, I suppose, pharmacists should replace the acetaminophen on their shelves with bottled leeches."
Mark

Australia

#96 Mar 28, 2010
Cont.:

"I am a medical doctor; it would be easy to write off my arguments as an exercise in turf protection. But it would be the cheap shot, and frankly untrue. Canadian health care is stretched to the limit these days, particularly in emergency care, and particularly following the fall flu season we have all experienced. Any set of hands would be welcome.
Any hands, that is, that actually do something. Canadians spend $3.8 billion annually on alternative health care, according to a study in 1997 by the Fraser Institute. I couldn’t find a more recent reference, but I am sure it is higher now. Regardless — put $3.8 billion into nurses in this country, or sports complexes, or even just better driver education, and see how far that goes to making us a healthier nation. Each of these interventions has study support.
"Traditional" medical care has been working hard to justify its treatment plans for much of the last two generations. We routinely expose errors in medical thinking, and broadcast them to each other and our patients in an effort to improve. Alternative health care should be held to the same rigorous standards. If the naturopaths, homeopaths and others in the alternative health-care industry want to justify their multibillion-dollar existence, I think they have work to do. Agree to stop selling services that don’t have evidence of benefit, for one example. Rigorously define the risks of the treatments sold, for another.
And not by referencing 200-year-old dead men, thanks. In times of tight financial pressure, if alternative health care is going to justify its draw on the Canadian purse, it really has only one valid response.
Just show us."
ikz

New Delhi, India

#99 Mar 28, 2010
Mark wrote:
Cont.:
"I am a medical doctor; it would be easy to write off my arguments as an exercise in turf protection. But it would be the cheap shot, and frankly untrue. Canadian health care is stretched to the limit these days, particularly in emergency care, and particularly following the fall flu season we have all experienced. Any set of hands would be welcome.
Any hands, that is, that actually do something. Canadians spend $3.8 billion annually on alternative health care, according to a study in 1997 by the Fraser Institute. I couldn’t find a more recent reference, but I am sure it is higher now. Regardless — put $3.8 billion into nurses in this country, or sports complexes, or even just better driver education, and see how far that goes to making us a healthier nation. Each of these interventions has study support.
"Traditional" medical care has been working hard to justify its treatment plans for much of the last two generations. We routinely expose errors in medical thinking, and broadcast them to each other and our patients in an effort to improve. Alternative health care should be held to the same rigorous standards. If the naturopaths, homeopaths and others in the alternative health-care industry want to justify their multibillion-dollar existence, I think they have work to do. Agree to stop selling services that don’t have evidence of benefit, for one example. Rigorously define the risks of the treatments sold, for another.
And not by referencing 200-year-old dead men, thanks. In times of tight financial pressure, if alternative health care is going to justify its draw on the Canadian purse, it really has only one valid response.
Just show us."
This is one important reason why there is so much opposition to homeopathy. What will happen to the pharmaceutical giants if all of us were healthy?

How much money do you spend upon your family every year? You should include the amount that is spent by the government on your behalf, and remove insurance cost paid by you. In this calculation I find I am spending less than USD 325 (this amount is tax free if I provide bills) every year for the past 3 years for our family of 4. This amount includes some pathology tests that are done at a hospital to reconfirm diagnosis. These tests can total over USD 150. The balance is for homeopathic consultation and medicines.

If we were in Australia this would be down to USD 100? What is your calculation?

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#100 Mar 28, 2010
ikz wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one important reason why there is so much opposition to homeopathy. What will happen to the pharmaceutical giants if all of us were healthy?
This is a RETARDED argument.

First of all, you haven't been claiming that homeopathy makes people healthy. You've been claiming that it fixes people who are unhealthy. In other words, you are claiming that it is medicine.

Second of all, they could just as easily sell homeopathic remedies at a MASSIVE profit margin because it's just bottling water.

However, since pharma companies have guidelines for business practices which don't allow them to commit rampant fraud, they do not sell homeopathic remedies.

That's because it's just water.
NObamarama

New Castle, PA

#101 Mar 29, 2010
Cite a reference from a highly respected, peer review journal then maybe I'll listen. No one is interested in your spam, junk science, propaganda websites.
C Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claims are quite interesting considering that there are 150+ plus methodologically reliable, controlled studies published in at least 24 international and national conventional journals proving that homeopathy works beyond placebo.
The most recent ground-breaking study done on breast cancer at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Texas U (one of the US's most highly respected cancer centers) shows that homeopathy kills breast cancer cells. This is the second study done at M.D. Anderson proving that homeopathy is capable of killing cancer cells--and with damaging surrounding cells or destroying the immune system.
www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/36/2/395
For a case of a brain tumor regressed 100% with homeopathy alone see:
www.telegraphindia.com/1040124/asp/calcutta/s...
for case records of 48 cancer cases see:
www.drpbanerji.com/cancer.htm
for other studies see:
www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-...
C Redd

Andover, NJ

#102 Mar 29, 2010
NObamarama wrote:
Cite a reference from a highly respected, peer review journal then maybe I'll listen. No one is interested in your spam, junk science, propaganda websites.
<quoted text>
I guess nobama can't read. If he/she could, he/she would have noticed that I posted exactly what he/she "demands" in my post to which he/she responded.

I have absolutely no interest in whether you "listen" or not. It's been blatantly obvious to most people for a long, long time that the "skeptics" (big pharma shills) have no interest in the facts or in good science.

www.whale.to/

They're just doing their "job".
Mark

Australia

#103 Mar 31, 2010
Homeopathy’s principles have been refuted by the basic sciences of chemistry, physics, pharmacology, and pathology. Homeopathy meets the dictionary definitions of a sect and a cult — the characteristics of which prevent advances that would change Hahnemann’s original principles. Most homeopathic studies are of poor methodological quality, and are subject to bias. Homeopathic product labels do not provide sufficient information to judge their dosages. Although homeopathic remedies are generally thought to be nontoxic due to their high dilutions, some preparations have proved harmful. The ostensible value of homeopathic products can be more than a placebo effect because some products have contained effective amounts of standard medications or have been adulterated. Only about half of the 300 homeopaths listed in the Directory of the National Center for Homeopathy are physicians. Others include naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, dentists, veterinarians, nurses or physician assistants. Homeopathy’s appeal lies in its personal attention to patients. Homeopathy is a magnet for untrustworthy practitioners who pose a threat to public safety. A perverse belief in the “healing crisis” causes practitioners to ignore adverse reactions, or to value them as “toxins being expelled.” The marketing of homeopathic products and services fits the definition of quackery established by a United States House of Representatives committee which investigated the problem (i.e., the promotion of “medical schemes or remedies known to be false, or which are unproven, for a profit”). The United States Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act lists the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States as a recognized compendium, but this status was due to political influence, not scientific merit. The FDA has not required homeopathic products to meet the efficacy requirements applied to all other drugs, creating an unacceptable double standard for drug marketing. The Federal Trade Commission has not taken action against homeopathic product advertising although it clearly does not meet the standards of truthful advertising generally applied to drugs. Postal authorities have not prosecuted mail-order product promoters that make unproven claims for mail fraud. Three states have established homeopathic licensing boards. Some of these have been administered by medical mavericks with a history of difficulties with former medical licensing boards.
Mark

Australia

#104 Mar 31, 2010
Studies of Homeopathy
Controlled studies involving homeopathic remedies appear to divide along political lines. While the results of most studies do not support the use of homeopathic remedies, some ostensibly well-designed trials have yielded positive findings. Some of these, however, have been done by homeopaths, and their reports contain rhetoric that reflects bias strong enough to undermine confidence in the researchers’ veracity. The best of these studies should be repeated by objective investigators with independent analyses of the homeopathic formulations employed to assure that they have not been adulterated with active medications. A comprehensive review of experimental research in homeopathy was done by Scofield (1984). He concluded:“It is obvious from this review that, despite much experimental and clinical work, there is only little evidence to suggest that homeopathy is effective. This is because of bad design, execution, reporting, analysis and, particularly, failure to repeat promising experimental work and not necessarily because of the inefficacy of the system which has yet to be properly tested on a large enough scale. There is sufficient evidence to warrant the execution of well-designed, carefully controlled experiments.” Scofield’s most encouraging statement for homeopaths was that “homeopathy has most certainly not been disproved.” However, Scofield ignored the scientific process. It is the absence of proof, not the absence of disproof, that is important. This is consistent with scientific dicta (based upon the statistical null hypothesis) that (1) no practice can be deemed safe or effective until proved to be so; and (2) the burden of proof is upon proponents.
Mark

Australia

#105 Mar 31, 2010
Cont:

A more recent meta-analysis of 107 controlled homeopathy trials appearing in 96 published reports also found “the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.” They also concluded that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy,“but only by means of well-performed trials”(Kleijnen, 1991).

In 1988, a French scientist working at that country’s prestigious INSERM institute claimed to have found that high dilutions of substances in water left a “memory,” providing a rationale for homeopathy’s Law of Infinitesimals. His findings were published in a highly regarded science journal, but with the caveat that the findings were unbelievable, and that the work was financed by a large homeopathic drug manufacturer (Nature, 1988). Subsequent investigations, including those by James Randi, disclosed that the research had been inappropriately carried out. The scandal resulted in the suspension of the scientist. Careful analysis of the study revealed that had the results been authentic, homeopathy would be more likely to worsen a patient’s condition than to heal, and that it would be impossible to predict the effect of the same dose from one time to another (Sampson, 1989).

The sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions about the trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers. Scofield appropriately stated:“It is hardly surprising in view of the quality of much of the experimental work as well as its philosophical framework, that this system of medicine is not accepted by the medical and scientific community at large.” Two guiding rules required by skeptics of pseudoscience should be applied to homeopathic research, to wit:(1) extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; and (2) it is not necessary to prove fraud, rather, the research must be done in such a manner that fraud is not possible.
ikz

New Delhi, India

#106 Apr 3, 2010
Mark wrote:
Cont:
A more recent meta-analysis of 107 controlled homeopathy trials appearing in 96 published reports also found “the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.” They also concluded that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy,“but only by means of well-performed trials”(Kleijnen, 1991).
In 1988, a French scientist working at that country’s prestigious INSERM institute claimed to have found that high dilutions of substances in water left a “memory,” providing a rationale for homeopathy’s Law of Infinitesimals. His findings were published in a highly regarded science journal, but with the caveat that the findings were unbelievable, and that the work was financed by a large homeopathic drug manufacturer (Nature, 1988). Subsequent investigations, including those by James Randi, disclosed that the research had been inappropriately carried out. The scandal resulted in the suspension of the scientist. Careful analysis of the study revealed that had the results been authentic, homeopathy would be more likely to worsen a patient’s condition than to heal, and that it would be impossible to predict the effect of the same dose from one time to another (Sampson, 1989).
The sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions about the trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers. Scofield appropriately stated:“It is hardly surprising in view of the quality of much of the experimental work as well as its philosophical framework, that this system of medicine is not accepted by the medical and scientific community at large.” Two guiding rules required by skeptics of pseudoscience should be applied to homeopathic research, to wit:(1) extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; and (2) it is not necessary to prove fraud, rather, the research must be done in such a manner that fraud is not possible.
A short response: A result if found, it is doubtful- put it under dubious claim, done by homeopaths, done incorrectly, not controlled. Discuss chemistry, physics and pathology. Include some fake homeopathic doctors and there is a valid reason to run down the system.

Include side effects as mandatory requirements for chemical drugs, brush aside thousands of deaths as a consequence to investigation and trial.( A note from a site on vaccination- However, a vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of DTaP vaccine- meant for children - causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.) Now you have a properly documented, drug licensed to kill or maim humans across the globe. It is already stated on the flap.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Homeopathy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bad reaction to Pulsatilla Aug 4 nutmeg1287 2
News The Dangers of Chiropractic (Dec '09) Jul 31 zio-hocus pocus 1,250
News Indian HIV patients unite to battle fake AIDS c... (Jun '07) May '16 STEVE 30
News Clay-eating homeopathy quacks want to 'unvaccin... Apr '16 Friend 2
Silicea 6x can be Used in Chronic Inflammations (May '09) Apr '16 Muhammad Abdullah 12
News Alternative Medicines for Impotence (May '12) Mar '16 GuyPassionFace 38
News Unauthorized Health Product: "SX Male Enhanceme... (Jul '10) Jan '16 Earle 12
More from around the web