Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy" story
Options
Comments
-
If only things were so easyjawlie wrote:I'm sure we would agree that "studies" do not equal independent clinical double blind trials subject to peer review. I mean, either it works and can be measured and observed to work, or else it doesn't and can't.
The fact is that there are many variables, a lot of them most likely unknown.
If you are trying to test something, anything, and you seem to have good solid methodologies, yet half of your tests say 'YES' and half say 'NO', I think it's a reasonable indication that you are missing something in the understanding of what you are trying to test. You are assuming that each test setup is invariant, when in reality, it may not be.
Now, people will argue that the 'YES' results are flawed blah blah., but really again that boils down to who you believe, and it's hard not to let a personal bias get in the way here (whether for or against).
I'm certain it would be!jawlie wrote:Bar far the best way they could promote their products would be to have irrefutable proof, beyond doubt, that they actually do work.
Pretty sure it's not...jawlie wrote:Again, with the specific example of their remedy for a cold, they claim, on their website, that it ..."is a homeopathic remedy specifically designed to bring fast, effective relief for the symptoms of cold and flu." It may be splitting hairs, but that sounds to me as if they are claiming to cure the "symptoms" of a cold or 'flu, which sounds like a cure for a cold or 'flu. Is symptomatic relief not a cure?0 -
Peanut wrote:If only things were so easy
The fact is that there are many variables, a lot of them most likely unknown.
If you are trying to test something, anything, and you seem to have good solid methodologies, yet half of your tests say 'YES' and half say 'NO', I think it's a reasonable indication that you are missing something in the understanding of what you are trying to test. You are assuming that each test setup is invariant, when in reality, it may not be.
Now, people will argue that the 'YES' results are flawed blah blah., but really again that boils down to who you believe, and it's hard not to let a personal bias get in the way here (whether for or against).
I have read this and reread it and can't understand what it is saying, or what the relevance of it is.
The fact is that the homoeopathic industry make claims that their remedies cure disease. So do the makers of many drugs. The difference is that the homoeopathic industry choose not to put their claims to the test, and prefers instead to reply on anecdote and pseudo science.
It is no accident or oversight that they choose not to subject their claims to independent verification.
As we can see from the Nelsons website, they also make contradictory claims for their products. as described earlier, which is unexplained.
It may well be that, for some people. they choose to believe the unproven claims and support the industry's considerable profits, and that is their choice.
I'll leave the last work to James Randie who explains the four principles of homoeopathy on this youtube link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U0 -
Peanut wrote:Regardless, it's generally not ideal that manufacturers should fund trials, as this leads to inevitable accusations of bias.
In scientific circles, accusations of bias only hold up when bias can be shown.
While I would agree that its not ideal, I would also say that manufacturer-funded trials which stand up to scrutiny are vastly preferable to no trials at all. If someone really takes umbrage at the findings, they will fund independant trials.
It is also worth pointing out that manufacturer-funded trials are how erstablished medical science is primarily regulated. It may not be ideal, but its good enough for so-called "conventional" medicine. All thats being asked for homeopathy is that it meet the same standards.0 -
I'm pointing out that 'double blind trials subject to peer review' are not a type of silver bullet that will automatically resolve a difficult question, especially when the trials yield conflicting results.jawlie wrote:I have read this and reread it and can't understand what it is saying, or what the relevance of it is.
I don't really see where this perception that they are afraid of conducting trials is coming from.
You can't compare an outfit like Nelsons with the big pharmaceutical companies, in terms of available funds. There is really no comparison, they are orders of magnitude smaller.
The biggest homeopathic manufacturer is Boiron, who DO fund research -
Their 2007 half-year report is here
"Research was a central issue in the merger between BOIRON and DOLISOS. More than 6 million euros was invested in 2006.
Between 2005 and 2008, investment quadrupled.
The results obtained in recent years provide evidence of the
pharmacological action, efficacy and public health benefits of an increasing
number of homeopathic medicines in a greater range of diseases."
(Page 12 onwards)
Similarly, as mentioned already, the Homeopathic hospitals in the UK also do their own studies.
I don't think that's entirely correct, and is quite likely responsible for a lot of negative impressions of alternative medicine in general. I don't believe they claim a complete 'cure' so to speak, in fact very few medicines do, outside of things like antibiotics etc. Some companies make exaggerated claims about their products - this does not necessarily mean that their products are ineffective.jawlie wrote:The fact is that the homoeopathic industry make claims that their remedies cure disease.
re: Randi - a guy approximately as scientific as Uri Geller -
Regardless, he deliberately misrepresents the contribution of Paracelsus for the purposes of his argument. In fact, the realisation of Parcelsus that "substances often considered toxic can be benign or beneficial in small doses" (wikipedia) is the polar opposite to Randi's attribution.
His '3rd rule' is plainly incorrect. A Homeopathically selected remedy may be in a high dilution, but it does not have to be. It can also be a 'macro' dose of a substance.
His entire argument is based upon the false assumption that the original substance is meant to be the 'active ingredient'. It is not.
I agree with this, but again I can't see where this 'no trials at all' is coming from, it is clearly not the case.bonkey wrote:While I would agree that its not ideal, I would also say that manufacturer-funded trials which stand up to scrutiny are vastly preferable to no trials at all.0 -
It seems that we just are not going to agree on this one.Peanut wrote:The biggest homeopathic manufacturer is Boiron, who DO fund research -
Their 2007 half-year report is here
Similarly, as mentioned already, the Homeopathic hospitals in the UK also do their own studies.
I am someone who is skeptical, and I need proof that something works. Merely that a private company, making profits out of homoeopathy, conducts its own "research" is not proof.
It is important to differentiate between proof and belief. Homoeopathy is not proven, although some people do choose to believe it works.
You say of homoeopathy claiming to be able to cure diseases that;Peanut wrote:
I don't think that's entirely correct, and is quite likely responsible for a lot of negative impressions of alternative medicine in general. I don't believe they claim a complete 'cure' so to speak, in fact very few medicines do, outside of things like antibiotics etc.
If they are not claiming to be able to cure disease, what are they doing?0 -
Advertisement
-
Guess notjawlie wrote:It seems that we just are not going to agree on this one.
Me too, however how someone chooses to get that 'proof' depends on the person.jawlie wrote:I am someone who is skeptical, and I need proof that something works.
Ok, well I argued all the relevant points about this. The reality is that there are a wide range of bodies that engage in this research, it's up to you how much you believe them, but I think it's pretty clear that there is research being done across the board. The idea that 'they don't do research because it would show them up as frauds' is bordering on conspiracy theory to be honest.jawlie wrote:Merely that a private company, making profits out of homoeopathy, conducts its own "research" is not proof.
No problem with that, many things are believed before they are 'proved', it's often the order of things.jawlie wrote:It is important to differentiate between proof and belief. Homoeopathy is not proven, although some people do choose to believe it works.
Note that 'proved' is really not as concrete a term as you might think - for example relativity theory is still being tested to this day by satellite launches, it still has not been 'proved' in a strict sense.
I can't speak for Nelsons or anyone else as such, but I imagine they are claiming that their products may help with people suffering from some of the conditions/symptoms described.jawlie wrote:If they are not claiming to be able to sure disease, what are they doing?0 -
When Uri Geller, who you mentioned, was proved to be a fraud on the Johnny Carson Show, and subsequently elsewhere, there were still those who chose, and still choose, to believe that he had, as he claimed, psychic powers. It is interesting to speculate as to why.
I am open to you, or anyone, producing proof that homoeopathy works. Proof does not mean anecdote or "reports" produced by companies making millions of euros from the homoeopathy industry.
As a footnote, "relativity theory is still being tested to this day by satellite launches" for the simple reason that its the best thing we have come up with to date and, until someone comes up with a better idea, it is generally accepted that it is the best we have.
On the other hand, homoeopathy was founded at a time when conventional medicine applied leeches and drilled holes in the cranium to relieve headache. Conventional medicine has developed beyond comprehension since then, although homoeopathy doesn't seem to have developed its ideas at all.
Anecdoatally, I find that some people believe in homoeopathy for various reasons, but invariable I have yet to see anyone relying on homoeopathy when they contract a serious life and potentially life threatening illness. A mystery.0 -
jawlie wrote:Proof does not mean anecdote or "reports" produced by companies making millions of euros from the homoeopathy industry.
To be fair, it could be the latter. What doesn't cut the mustard is companies saying "we've done tests to best practice and shown ...". What cuts the mustard is a full and accurate documentation of the test being made freely available, so that people can evaluate the validity of the claims and re-perform the same test should they so desire.0 -
bonkey wrote:To be fair, it could be the latter. What doesn't cut the mustard is companies saying "we've done tests to best practice and shown ...". What cuts the mustard is a full and accurate documentation of the test being made freely available, so that people can evaluate the validity of the claims and re-perform the same test should they so desire.
Of course it could be, but could be doesn't cut the mustard as proof. While its all very well to have a "could be" to cure a cold or other minor illnesses which will get better if left to their own devices anyhow, imagine someone agreeing to an unproven "could be" for heart disease or for glaucoma, for example, when other treatments are available which have been tried and tested and proved to have a high chance of success.
Anyone must agree that to open any results to be re-performed under controlled conditions by others would be ideal.0 -
Just a note ... science is not in the business of proof (this is a mathematical construct). Science works on probabilities and evidence is accumulated to the point where hunches become hypotheses become theories become accepted scientific 'fact'.
The evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy above and beyond non-specific effects like placebo is esentially non-existent. Even Dr. Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary and Alternative medicine, says this. It has never been demonstrated to be effective beyond placebo.
The validity of the various theories behind it (all the wishful 'could-be' quantum woo-wooing about water memory somehow initiated through ritual succussion etc) are completely without credibility and amount at best to flights of pseudoscientific fancy. There is not a shred of evidence to support the theoretical claims or even suggest why they might be feasible ... apart from the fact that they needed to come up with some sort of theoretical base for the outrageous chemical and physical claims being made.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm sorry, but when was the last time you saw homeopathy recommended for heart disease?jawlie wrote:...imagine someone agreeing to an unproven "could be" for heart disease or for glaucoma, for example, when other treatments are available which have been tried and tested and proved to have a high chance of success.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's hardly the norm.
And these are available. As an example, if you had the funding and expertise, you could do the trial mentioned at the start of this thread yourself, if you so wished.bonkey wrote:What cuts the mustard is a full and accurate documentation of the test being made freely available, so that people can evaluate the validity of the claims and re-perform the same test should they so desire.
I'm sure you're aware of it, but your definition of 'essentially' is where your viewpoint (and mine) comes into effect.Myksyk wrote:The evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy above and beyond non-specific effects like placebo is esentially non-existent.
...It has never been demonstrated to be effective beyond placebo.
Certain individual trials HAVE demonstrated effectiveness beyond placebo.
Certain meta-analyses of trials HAVE demostrated an effect beyond placebo.
Others HAVEN'T. To state that it has 'never been demonstrated' is a non-neutral viewpoint, as I hardly think that you can invalidate all successful trials without knowing the details about them.
Not a particularly unbiased observer - he is involved in other aspects of complementary medicine and competes directly for funding with homeopaths.Myksyk wrote:Even Dr. Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary and Alternative medicine, says this.
The 'outrageousness' of the claims is largely irrelevant if there are well-run studies that show positive results.Myksyk wrote:.. There is not a shred of evidence to support the theoretical claims or even suggest why they might be feasible ... apart from the fact that they needed to come up with some sort of theoretical base for the outrageous chemical and physical claims being made.
I also fail to see what is particularly outrageous about a memory effect, especially since types of physical non-local 'memory effects' have been known about for a long time (Yes, quantum entanglement/teleportation is an example. Sorry if it offends anyone's sensibilities.)
Of course a lot of proposed theories may be wishy-washy, and may have lost credibility through over-enthuasiastic comparisons with established non-local effects.
On the other hand, many critics will indignantly claim that for it to be effective would require "a complete rewrite of the laws of physics" etc.
This is complete rubbish, and is usually due to a lack of understanding that assumes that the original substance is meant to be materially present in the end result.
No doubt IF some theoretical basis was found and verified to an extent, it would represent a large shift in understanding, but my money is that the 'laws of physics' would not have to be completely re-written. They might need to be updated a bit, though.0 -
Peanut wrote:Certain individual trials HAVE demonstrated effectiveness beyond placebo.
Certain meta-analyses of trials HAVE demostrated an effect beyond placebo.
Please reference these trials so we can review their quality and reliability.Not a particularly unbiased observer - he is involved in other aspects of complementary medicine and competes directly for funding with homeopaths.
He's well respected on both sides of the debate. He has assessed the evidence and said there is no evidence of effectiveness.The 'outrageousness' of the claims is largely irrelevant if there are well-run studies that show positive results.
There aren't. Show me one study which demonstrates that quantum mechanics are at work in homeopathy. Just one will do.I also fail to see what is particularly outrageous about a memory effect, especially since types of physical non-local 'memory effects' have been known about for a long time (Yes, quantum entanglement/teleportation is an example. Sorry if it offends anyone's sensibilities.)
Please explain how what we know about quantum mechanics translates to the specific claims of homeopathy. We'll have Professor Vic Stenger over in September at the ECSO congress to show how they categorically have no relation. Please feel free to come and tackle him on it.0 -
The relevant information can be found with a bit of Googling, however I will post references for the sake of argument.Myksyk wrote:Please reference these trials so we can review their quality and reliability.
Perhaps, yet,Myksyk wrote:He's well respected on both sides of the debate. He has assessed the evidence and said there is no evidence of effectiveness.
This, this and this
indicate that he may not be universally acclaimed.
Funny... I don't remember saying that there was such a thing?Myksyk wrote:There aren't. Show me one study which demonstrates that quantum mechanics are at work in homeopathy. Just one will do.
Maybe you've seen one?
I made no such claim, I merely provided it as an example of an action that could be viewed as 'memory-like'.Myksyk wrote:Please explain how what we know about quantum mechanics translates to the specific claims of homeopathy.
There are many other systems that display memory like properties, that do not require quantum mechanics. Either way, I am not making a judgement on whether any particular interpretation is correct.
It is clear that if there is a homeopathic effect, then there currently exists no easily testable theoretical outline for it. This does not mean that such a theory may not exist in the future.
Great.Myksyk wrote:We'll have Professor Vic Stenger over in September at the ECSO congress to show how they categorically have no relation. Please feel free to come and tackle him on it.0 -
Can I clarify your position for myself ... basically, you believe that when something is diluted out of solution and no longer exists in that solution (a scientific fact) that "somehow" the "memory" of it is maintained and has the ability to effect other physical systems. Is this correct?
You also admit that there is no coherent theory for why this extraordinary claim might be true but "there might be one in the future".
Can you also clarify that this was not Hahnemann's original position. He or his followers had to be told that he was positing an impossible claim (because it contravened a basic law of chemistry) - there could be no infitessimal amount left in the solution ... it was then that the homeopaths rewrote the book to include the whole "water memory" thing.0 -
Myksyk, It appears there are two different kinds of people.
Firstly, there are those who want to believe in homoeopathy, and do not need any evidence beyond anecdote and pseudo science to sustain their belief. Indeed, as with many who want to believe, they will often talk up what they view as the successes and ignore the failings which may, inconviently, contradict them. Anecdote and pseudo science are their friends and rigorous questioning and the search for truth are their foes.
Secondly, there are those who think that this is not enough, and want proof that it actually works. Proof beyond anecdote and pseudo science.
It is interesting that many who support homoeopathy ( I am not saying it is true or not true, and I am open to be persuaded with evidence) spend such a lot of time trying to prove how it works, rather than trying to prove if it works.
If you read some of this thread, you will see that it appears Peanut has decided that homoeopathy works, and at the same time seems to resist any attempts to examine or scrutinise this belief. I would have thought if one believed something, one would welcome an opportunity to examine it many times over to prove it to others, and would strive to do that.
Edward de Bono calls this the Intelligence Trap, and says this;
"Unfortunately, many people with a high intelligence actually turn out to be poor thinkers. They get caught in the ‘intelligence trap’, of which there are many aspects. For example, a highly intelligent person may take up a view on a subject and then defend that view (through choice of premises and perception) very ably. The better someone is able to defend a view, the less inclined is that person actually to explore the subject. So the highly intelligent person can get trapped by intelligence, together with our usual sense of logic that you cannot be more right than right, into one point of view. The less intelligent person is less sure of his or her rightness and therefore more free to explore the subject and other points of view.
There is a link here to a more full description of the Intelligence Trap www.thinkingmanagers.com/blog/2005/12/05/edward-de-bono-intelligence-trap.
We all have to decide for ourselves whether it is possible to have a logical or rational discussion with someone stuck in the Intelligence Trap until they decide to get out of it.0 -
I tend to agree Jawlie. There is so little evidence for the theory and practice of homeopathy that you would think the only reasonable position is one of healthy scepticism. We're open to being convinced but at the moment there's absolutely no reason to be so. Certainly the conviction with which some people defend the practice is hard to understand given the entirely flimsy evidence base and the absence of a coherent theory behind it. There are so many questions to which they can only answer "we don't know but maybe one day we will" that I just can't see why they are so convinced.0
-
Hi Jawlie, I think if I felt like that, I wouldn't be posting in a Skeptics forum!jawlie wrote:..you will see that it appears Peanut has decided that homoeopathy works, and at the same time seems to resist any attempts to examine or scrutinise this belief.
You can equally very easily attribute your Intelligence trap to the hardcore skeptical viewpoint.
Yes, my personal opinion is that I am open to that possibility.Myksyk wrote:Can I clarify your position for myself ... basically, you believe that when something is diluted out of solution and no longer exists in that solution (a scientific fact) that "somehow" the "memory" of it is maintained and has the ability to effect other physical systems. Is this correct?
I can't give you a reference right now, but I would be fairly sure that Hahnemann was well aware that the dilutions he had started using were well beyond the material dose of the substance. I believe the use of the term 'infinitesimals' to describe these, had started early on in the development of his theories, indicating knowledge of the levels of dilution.Myksyk wrote:You also admit that there is no coherent theory for why this extraordinary claim might be true but "there might be one in the future".
Can you also clarify that this was not Hahnemann's original position. He or his followers had to be told that he was positing an impossible claim (because it contravened a basic law of chemistry) - there could be no infitessimal amount left in the solution ... it was then that the homeopaths rewrote the book to include the whole "water memory" thing.0 -
I respect people's pursuit of Skepticism as a valid and important part of scientific inquiry - however equally so, the over-application of a Skeptical viewpoint can lead to the very type of blind faith it seeks to overturn.
For example, there have been many claims here along the lines that there is 'no evidence whatsoever of Homeopathy being effective'.
This is quite a more absolutist claim to make than that of uncertainty.
I am not arguing that current research has 'proved' Homeopathy.
Rather, I believe it clearly shows that it remains an open question.
Some meta-analysis results, more to follow:
[*]Kleijnen J., Knipschild P., Riet G., Clinical trials of homeopathy, British Medical Journal, 1991
"In 1991, a meta-analysis was published which involved the meticulous study of 107 trials. As regards
methods used for the clinical evaluation, the conclusion was clear: "it is wrong to say that homeopathy has
not been evaluated according to the modern method of controlled trials". Among these clinical trials, a
large majority (81 to be exact) has had positive results concerning the efficacy of homeopathic
treatment."
[*]Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al.
Lancet 1997;350:834-43.
"186 clinical studies on homeopathic therapeutics were examined. Among these, they
analyzed 89 trials centered on the study of what they
call "classical homeopathy". This covers trials in
which the prescribing of one or several medicines is
done while remaining as close as possible to the
actual criteria of the therapeutics.
The results "were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo".
The authors point out that the overall quality of their
analyzed trials is very much comparable to the overall
quality of any series of clinical tests concerning a disease
or therapeutic method. They also note that if the
studied trials are segmented by level of quality, this
does not modify the positive outcome of the observed
results in any group."
[*]Report to the European Commission directorate
general XII: science, research and development. Vol 1 (short version). Brussels: European Commission,
1996:16-7.
Report of the Homeopathic Medicine Research Group
"The HMRG report contains an overview of clinical research in homeopathy, and identified 184 controlled clinical trials. They selected the highest quality randomized control trials, which included a total of 2617 patients for a meta-analysis. This meta-analysis resulted in a p-value of 0.000036 indicating that homeopathy is more effective than placebo. The researchers concluded that the "hypothesis that homeopathy has no effect can be rejected with certainty""
[*]Cucherat, M., Haugh, M. C., Gooch, M., & Boissel, J. P. 2000, "Evidence of clinical efficacy of
homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory
Group", Eur.J.Clin.Pharmacol., vol.. 56, no. 1, pp. 27-33.
"The authors analyzed the 20 trials which all had the
following characteristics: correct randomization, definition
of a specific main criterion, curative interventions.
After eliminating trials where there was not
sufficient data for all of the author-planned statistical
analyses, 17 comparisons were retained for analysis,
corresponding to 15 different publications and 2,001
patients.
Their conclusion - "The number of significant results is probably not due to chance alone.""
[*]Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. British Medical Journal.
1991b;302:316-23.
"It is wrong to say that homeopathy hasnot been evaluated according to the modern method of controlled
trials"
and
"The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a
surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would readily accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if
only the mechanism of action were more plausible."
[*]Boiron -
"Our review of 119 randomised peer-reviewed clinical trials (RCTs) of homeopathy to the end of 2005 shows
that 49% show positive results for homeopathy. Only 3% were negative. The remaining 48% were inconclusive, which does not mean negative - it means that we need more research."
[*]The evidence base for homeopathy in the treatment and management of allergic conditions
Faculty of Homeopathy, 2006
"5.1 Thirteen randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the peer-reviewed
literature have studied the effect of homeopathy in allergic conditions.
Clinical areas of investigation have been limited to seasonal allergic rhinitis
(11 RCTs) and allergic asthma (two RCTs); 12 of them were placebocontrolled
studies, the other was an equivalence trial.
5.2 Nine of these trials reported statistical analyses in favour of homeopathy,1.9
one found homeopathy to be inferior to placebo,10 and three observed no
significant differences between patient groups.11.13 This overall positive
conclusion from RCTs of homeopathy in allergy has support in the findings of
six systematic reviews.6, 14.18 Summary details of the nine RCTs with positive findings are listed below:
1 Aabel S, Laerum E,Dolvik S,Djupesland P (2000)
Verum group had fewer and less serious symptoms during a certain period of
the birch pollen season. Single-day P values ranged from 0.41 to 0.02, i.e. for
some days the differences between verum and placebo were statistically
significant.
2 Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, et al. (2005)
Significant positive changes from baseline to 4 weeks in the verum group
compared with the placebo group (P = 0.032 for rhino-conjunctivitis symptoms,
P = 0.031 for activity impairment, P = 0.04 for reported health transition).
3 Reilly DT, Taylor MA (1985)
Maximum clinical improvement in verum group in weeks 3 and 4, with
maximum statistical significance in week 3 (P = 0.002). Substantial reduction in average consumption of antihistamine tablets in verum group compared with placebo at that time.
4 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T (1986)
Mean change of VAS scores was .17.2 in verum group and .2.6 mm in placebo
group (P = 0.02). Doctor-assessed scores showed similar reduction: .27.7 in
verum group vs. .12.2 in placebo group (P = 0.05). Use of antihistamines
lower in the verum group than in controls: total 11.2 cf. 19.7 tablets (P = 0.03).
5 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, et al. (1994)
Difference in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy
appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (P = 0.003). Similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests.
6 Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. (2000)
Homeopathy group had significant objective improvement in nasal airflow
compared with placebo group (mean difference 19.8 l/min, 95% CI 10.4 to 29.1
(P = 0.0001).
7 Wiesenauer M, Häussler S, Gaus W (1983)
After observation time of 17 days, Galphimia was more effective than placebo
(P = 0.01). Significant benefit in 34 of 41 (83%) patients in verum group and in 21 of 45 (47%) patients in placebo group; 3 weeks later in 30 of 37 (81%)
patients in verum group, in 20 of 35 (57%) patients in placebo group.
8 Wiesenauer M, Gaus W, Haussler S (1990)
After 5 weeks of treatment, significant improvement of ocular symptoms in 75
of 98 (77%) patients in verum group and 52 of 103 (51%) patients in placebo
group (P < 0.01). Improvement of nasal symptoms: 75 of 98 (77%) patients in
verum group and 48 of 103 (46%) in placebo group (P < 0.01).
9 Weiser M, Gegenheimer LH, Klein P (1999)
Rhino-conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score changed significantly
in the course of treatment. VAS scores increased by 24% in verum group and by 29%. in controls. Global assessments of therapeutic efficacy did not markedly differ with respect to treatments or the rating person. Therapeutic noninferiority of homeopathic vs. cromolyn sodium treatment was demonstrated.0 -
Peanut wrote:I believe the use of the term 'infinitesimals' to describe these, had started early on in the development of his theories, indicating knowledge of the levels of dilution.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the difference here, but I always believed that the term (infinitessimal) arose because they were sugegstnig there was a trace amount remaining.
In factm, however, with the amount of dilution which had been done, statistically there shouldn't be even a single molecule left. It was only when this was pointed out (by skeptics) that the discussion went in the direction of quantum effects.
Personally, I don't have a problem with that timeline, even if it is what happened. You can be on the right trail with the wrong assumptions...whats important is that when teh assumptions are shown to be wrong, they are discarded. I would have had more of a problem if the "infinitessimal" argument persisted in somehow suggesting that statistical breakdown was wrong and there would always be a molecule or two remaining.
The problem with quantum-effect arguments for me, however, springs from a different source. The effect of the drugs being used in traditional medicine is biochemical in nature. They work at a molecular level. Quantum effects just don't come into play at those sales.
The idea that when all molecules of the substance have been removed through the appropriate molecular-level process, there is still some molecular-level effect is, simply put, exceptional.
It suggests that not only is there a quantum effect at the molecular level in terms of the efficacy, but that there is also a quantum effect at an even larger scale in terms of how the preparation is prepared.
Alternately, it suggests that molecular biology as we understand it is fundamentally wrong - that what we understand to be the way things work is either completely wrong, or (at the least) that it is one layer too far removed from what's really happening.
Simply put, such exceptional claims should require exceptional evidence before being given credence. THe skeptic's position should be that it is not impossible for these claims to be correct, but until such exceptional evidence is produced, they should not be considered to be "truth".
Not so.Peanut wrote:You can equally very easily attribute your Intelligence trap to the hardcore skeptical viewpoint.
The hardcore skeptical viewpoint is that until such times as evidence of sufficient credibility supports a claim, then the claim is not supported.
It is only when you go beyond that to the realms of "I won't believe it even if they do produce the evidence" that you are falling into the Intelligence Trap....but at that point you've already abandoned Skepticism for dogma anyway.0 -
Yes, my personal opinion is that I am open to that possibility.
Even if a 'memory' existed, how would it effect other macro biological systems? What properties are still 'in effect'? Are all properties still remembered? Does the water and sugar also have all the properties of the original substance?I can't give you a reference right now, but I would be fairly sure that Hahnemann was well aware that the dilutions he had started using were well beyond the material dose of the substance. I believe the use of the term 'infinitesimals' to describe these, had started early on in the development of his theories, indicating knowledge of the levels of dilution.
I don't think this is accurate. Avogadro's work was not common currency until about 20 years after Hanemann's death. I think it is clear from his writing that he assumed there was some level of substance remaining and that he could continue diluting and (in his strange philosophy of things) strenghtening the supposed effect. The motivation to dilute was simply the fact that his 'like cures like' idea was causing toxic effects in people. He found his diluted compounds still had impact (some of which were obviously placebo) and so he went with this. He never tried to assess (and in fairness was probably unaware of) the impacts of the multitude of psychological, perceptual, social and physical factors which we're aware today will impact a good percentage of people in any clinincal setting. He was therefore very open to making errors in assuming causal connections where none existed.
The water memory theory is much more recent, stemming I think from Bienveniste in 1988. He went on to claim that these memories could be transferred thru the internet ... how? well like most of his theories he had no idea.
I think the bottom line here Peanut is that, as Jawlie says, you believe homeopathy works ... probably from personal experience or experience of people you know using it and reporting positive effects. You are unconvinced by the scientific view that it is not possible on the basis of our knowledge of chemistry and physics and no feasible theory to even approach explaining how it could have an effect.
Furthermore you are not convinced by people drawing your attention to the many factors we already know about which can have exactly the effects reported by people who take homeopathic substances and which could explain both the anecdotal and research evidence reported by supporters of the practice. Instead of this you opt favour the future possibility of an extraordinary new theory of chemistry to explain these simple effects.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am not arguing that current research has 'proved' Homeopathy.
Rather, I believe it clearly shows that it remains an open question.
Firstly, can I iterate again for all of us that 'proof' of a scientific theory is not possible so we're not after proof. We're after a substantial body of supporting data which demonstrates significant and replicable effects. We would also like a workable, falsifiable and coherent theory to embed data in. We have none of the above.
So, in one way, you can say that it is "an open question" as long as you don't think this means it is as likely to be scientifically valid as not (which I think is your implication). A fair assessment is that the current status of homeopathy is as an almost completely unsupported idea without any workable theoretical base. It is an open question in the same way as any unsupported, unanswered question is 'open'.0 -
Agreed, in theory. However, in practice, this is what the skeptic's position comes across as.bonkey wrote:THe skeptic's position should be that it is not impossible for these claims to be correct
Re: Infinitesimal,
I think it's quite clear that Hahnemann believed that the actions of his high dilutions were an entirely different mode of action than that of the macro doses.
From the Organon, aphorism 16 -
(link)
"..and in like manner, all such morbid derangements (diseases) cannot be removed from it by the physician in any other way than by the spirit-like alternative powers of the serviceable medicines"
That's fair enough, but we are not comparing like with like here, as homeopathy is clearly not 'traditional medicine'.bonkey wrote:The effect of the drugs being used in traditional medicine is biochemical in nature. They work at a molecular level. Quantum effects just don't come into play at those sales.
That's correct, and the transmission via digitisation was one of the more bizarre claims of that time. However subsequent research based on the histamine model employed at the time has been far more conventional.bonkey wrote:The water memory theory is much more recent, stemming I think from Bienveniste in 1988. He went on to claim that these memories could be transferred thru the internet ... how? well like most of his theories he had no idea.
It is, if you assume that the previous interactions of the substance in the system have left no modification to that system.bonkey wrote:..The idea that when all molecules of the substance have been removed through the appropriate molecular-level process, there is still some molecular-level effect is, simply put, exceptional.
I am not going to speculate on what properties may remain, sufficient to say that the development of the theory in the past would suggest that some similar properties remain, although they may be in opposition [e.g. inhibitory effects instead of stimulatory ones]myksyk wrote:Even if a 'memory' existed, how would it effect other macro biological systems? What properties are still 'in effect'?
No, they clearly don't, otherwise they would act identically to the original macroscopic substance.myksyk wrote:Are all properties still remembered? Does the water and sugar also have all the properties of the original substance?
I don't think it's fair to assume this.myksyk wrote:He never tried to assess (and in fairness was probably unaware of) the impacts of the multitude of psychological, perceptual, social and physical factors which we're aware today will impact a good percentage of people in any clinincal setting.
I'm arguing the point.myksyk wrote:..Instead of this you opt favour the future possibility of an extraordinary new theory of chemistry to explain these simple effects.
I see a lot of misinformation about why it couldn't possibly work, and a widespread lack of understanding about the claims actually made by the "theory".
I agree that it requires exceptional changes to established science, but I can understand that it possibly might work, given certain additional complexities that may as yet have been elusive.
Please note that the punctuation is not accidental.myksyk wrote:Firstly, can I iterate again for all of us that 'proof' of a scientific theory is not possible ..
That would be great, unfortunately not always possible.myksyk wrote:We would also like a workable, falsifiable and coherent theory to embed data in.
What I take issue with is your claim that there is 'no shred of evidence', yet there have been multiple positive trials, that, while perhaps not convincingly making the case for Homeopathy, do at least make it very unlikely that an assertion like 'there is no evidence' is true.0 -
Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo.
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, Baldwin CM. (2004)
"A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of individualised homeopathic treatment (LM potency)
versus placebo concluded that individualised homeopathy is significantly better than placebo
in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and overall health of persons with
fibromyalgia."
Pharmacoeconomic comparison between homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in recurrent
acute rhinopharyngitis in children. Homeopathy. 2005
Trichard M, Chaufferin G, Nicoloyannis N.
"Results showed that homeopathy was significantly better than antibiotics in terms of episodes of
rhinopharyngitis (2.71 vs 3.97, p<0.001), number of complications (1.25 vs 1.95, p<0.001) and quality of life
(global score: 21.38 vs 30.43, p<0.001)"
Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double
blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. European Journal of Paediatrics (2005).
Frei,-H; Everts,-R; von-Ammon,-K; Kaufmann,-F; Walther,-D; Hsu-Schmitz,-S-F; Collenberg,-M; Fuhrer,-K;
Hassink,-R; Steinlin,-M; Thurneysen,-A
"The trial suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder, particularly in the areas of behavioural and cognitive functions."
An experimental double-blind clinical trial in homoeopathy. British Homoeopathic Journal 1986;
Fisher P.
"In a randomised placebo-controlled trial of patients with fibrositis, only those patients in whom Rhus
toxicodendron was "unequivocally indicated" were admitted to the study. After 1 months treatment,
there were highly significant improvements in objective and subjective parameters."
Homeopathic Arnica montana for post-tonsillectomy analgesia: a randomised placebo control trial
A. Robertson, R. Suryanarayanan, A Banerjee (2006)
ENT Department, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
ENT Department, Arrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK
ENT Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK
"Randomised double blind, placebo controlled trial at a tertiary referral centre. 190 patients over the age of 18 undergoing tonsillectomy were randomised into intervention and control groups receiving either Arnica 30c or identical placebo, 2 tablets 6 times in the first post-operative day and then 2 tablets twice a day for the next 7 days.
..
The results of this trial suggest that Arnica montana given after tonsillectomy provides a small, but statistically significant, decrease in pain scores compared to placebo."
Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Using Homeopathic Preparation of Common Allergens in the
Southwest Region of the US: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.
Ann Pharmacother. 2005 Apr;39(4):617-24. Epub 2005 Mar 1.
Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters RF.
Double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic preparations from common allergens (tree, grass, weed)
with placebo. 40 patients diagnosed with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms
were treated over a 4 week period. Results showed significant positive changes in the homeopathy group
compared with the placego group (p<0.05). No adverse effects were reported.
Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflamm. Res. 2004; 53: 181-188.
Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC.
"In a multi-centre study including four research centres in Europe the effect of high dilutions of histamine
(10-30 . 10-38 M) were confirmed. Researchers were able to document that high dilutions of histamine inhibit
human basophil degranulation. Results cannot be explained through molecular theories."
(a previous related trial was -
Davenas, E., Beauvais, F., Amara, J., Oberbaum, M., Robinzon, B., Miadonna, A., Tedeschi, A., Pomeranz, B.,
Fortner, P., Belon, P., Sainte-Laudy, J., Poitevin, B., and Benveniste, J. "Human Basophil Degranulation
Triggered by Very Dilute Antiserum Against IgE." )
The effect of the homeopathic remedies Arnica montana and Bellis perennis on mild postpartum bleeding—A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study—Preliminary results
Menachem Oberbauma,Narine Galoyanb, Liat Lerner-Gevac, Shepherd Roee
Singera, Sorina Grisarub, David Shashard and Arnon Samueloffb
"Treatment with homeopathic Arnica montana and Bellis perennis may reduce postpartum blood loss, as compared with placebo."
Particularite de l´utilisation de l´homeopathie en production avicole. Annals of th Entretiens Internationaux
de Monaco 2002., 5-6 October 2002.
Filliat C.
In a study of homeopathically potentised remedies the incidence of haematomas was reduced by 30 % in
turkeys during transportation. The study was randomised, placebo controlled and double blinded.
Ameliorating effect of microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum Album, on arsenic-induced toxicity in mice
P Mallick, J Chakrabarti (Mallick), B Guha and AR Khuda-Bukhsh
"Both Arsenicum Album-30 and Arsenicum Album-200 ameliorated arsenic-induced toxicity to a considerable
extent as compared to various controls."
Aspirin at Very Ultra Low Dosage in Healthy Volunteers: Effects on Bleeding Time, Platelet Aggregation and
Coagulation.
Haemostasis, 1990, 20: 99-105.
"Aspirin at very ultra low dosage was tested in healthy volunteers (n = 20) in a randomized, double-blind and
placebo-controlled trial. The results showed a bleeding time reduction (p less than 0.05) in volunteers having
previously ingested aspirin."
Combination of two doses of acetyl salicylic acid : experimental study of arterial thrombosis. Thrombosis
Research 1998; 90: 215.21
Belougne-Malfatti E, Aguejouf O, Doutremepuich F, Belon P. Doutremepuich C.
"The antithrombotic effect of high dose acetylsalicylic acid is well known, and recently, in vitro studies hinted
the potent thrombotic effect of ultra-low dose of acetylsalicylic acid (<1mg/day) showing a significant decrease in bleeding time.
..
Acetylsalicylic acid injected at ultra-low dose (10(-30) mg/kg) had a potent thrombotic properties and
decreased significantly the bleeding time."
Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride
Prof. Louis Rey
Chemin de Verdonnet 2, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland
"Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10−30 gcm−3)
have been irradiated by X- and γ-rays at 77 K, then progressively rewarmed
to room temperature. During that phase, their thermoluminescence has been
studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro
number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially."
Need to find a link to the paper for this one -
Professor Martin Chaplin
Water and Aqueous Systems Research, London South Bank University,
"The 'memory of water' is a concept by which the properties of an aqueous preparation are held to depend
on the previous history of the sample. Although associated with the mechanism of homeopathy,
this association may mislead. There is strong evidence concerning many ways in which the mechanism of this
'memory' may come about.
There are also mechanisms by which such solutions may possess effects on biological systems which
substantially differ from plain water."
These last two are very recent so have not been replicated yet, to the best of my knowledge -
The 'Memory of Water': an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions
V. Elia, E. Napoli and R. Germano
Dipto. di Chimica, Universita Federico II di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, via
Cintia, 80126 Napoli, Italy; (May 2007)
" In the last decade, we have investigated from the physicochemical point of view, whether water prepared
by the procedures of homeopathic medicine (leading inexorably to systems without any molecule different from the solvent) results in water different from the initial water?
The answer, unexpectedly, but strongly supported by many experimental results is positive. We used
well-established physicochemical techniques: flux calorimetry, conductometry, pHmetry and galvanic cell
electrodes potential. Unexpectedly the physicochemical parameters evolve in time.
...
These new experimental results strongly suggest the presence of an extended and 'ordered' dynamics
involving liquid water molecules. "
The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy
Manju Lata Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R. Bell and Richard Hoover
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
July 2007
"The key stumbling block to serious consideration of homeopathy is the presumed "implausibility" of biological
activity for homeopathic medicines in which the source material is diluted past Avogadro's number of
molecules. Such an argument relies heavily on the assumptions of elementary chemistry (and biochemistry),
in which the material composition of a solution, (dilution factors and ligand-receptor interactions), is the essential consideration.
..
Preliminary data obtained using Raman and Ultra-Violet-Visible (UV-VIS) spectroscopy illustrate the ability to
distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another and
to differentiate, within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies."0 -
Thanks for the list of references Peanut. I don't feel literate enough in the area to assess them so I had a friend look at your posts and comment. He is a highly regarded academic with a strong interest in this area and these are some of his comments in an email to me:
I note that in posting #49, Peanut cites a set of meta-analyses--I would like to comment on these.
Essentially, one problem with many published meta-analyses is that they are confined to covering published literature, which can--for many reasons--vary in quality. There are basic statistical reasons why poor methodological quality (which undermines statistical homogeneity and so creates spurious variance) would be associated with false-positives (a.k.a. Type II errors) rather than with missed-targets (a.k.a. Type I errors). In other words, poor methodological quality increases the risk of finding something that isn't there to a greater extent than it increases the risk of failing to find something that is there. For example, in relation to acupuncture, Ezzo et al. (2000; Pain, 86: 217-25) showed that the association between poor methodological quality and false positives was so strong as to be statistically significant.
I mention this because most of the meta-analyses cited by Peanut fail to account for such effects, at least explicitly. If one were to examine one of the first reviews on his list (Linde et al., 1997), one would find that these authors found the effects for homeopathy to be loaded onto the methodologically weakest trials. In other words, when Linde et al. confined consideration to the methodologically best trials, the effect for homeopathy weakened. The most conventional interpretation for this type of pattern is that the effect that was reported was an artifact of poor methodological quality--not an outcome of real effects for homeopathy. Linde et al. themselves published a detailed explanation of this in 1999 (J Clin Epidemiology, 52: 631-6). I assume that Peanut didn't mention this because either (a) s/he doesn't undertsand the basic point or (b) s/he isn't aware of the second paper. If the latter, then we might question whether Peanut is actually quite as knowledgable regarding the pertinent literature as her/his lengthy lists of citations might be intended to imply.
To some extent, similar issues pertain to the other reviews as well. This is why the Shang et al. (2005) analysis in Lancet (366: 726-32) was considered so important (and, indeed, so newsworthy). This analysis sought to control for methodological quality by matching a set of 110 homeopathy trials with 110 allopathy trials, where the matched studies had virtually identical methodologies to their homeopathy twins. This allowed the authors to theoretically account for the effects of methodology and methodological quality, such that the comparative difference in variance could be attributed to treatment outcome effects. Surprise, surprise, after doing this the authors found the apparent effects for homeopathy to be so small as to be completely attributable to methodological quality. In other words, the meta-analysis found homeopathy to have no effect beyond the statistical 'noise in the system' that one would expect to find in any trial.
Given that the Shang et al. paper controlled for one of the conventional problems of meta-analysis, it is surprising that Peanut fails to cite it. Its recent publication means that it effectively trumps all meta-analyses that went before.
I note that Peanut subsequently enters into a laborious citation of individual studies (posting #54). This would appear to be pointless. If looking at individual studies was worthwhile, then why have (or discuss) meta-analysis at all? Either one accepts that individual trials are unreliable (which is the justification for meta-analysis) or one does not.0 -
. Rather curiously, he now seems to provide a mind boggling number of other studies which he now claims prove homoeopathy works, although previously he had said that this "could" be the first hard evidence. I'm confused.Peanut wrote:"..Researchers have just published what could be the first hard evidence in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that appears to support the central idea behind homoeopathy..."
If one looks at the evidence produced, it is all non specific and generalised.Peanut wrote:" is significantly better than placebo
...was significantly better than antibiotics in terms of episodes of
rhinopharyngitis ... suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ....highly significant improvements in objective and subjective parameters...this trial suggest that Arnica montana given after tonsillectomy provides a small, but statistically significant, decrease in pain scores compared to placebo...significant positive changes in the homeopathy group
compared with the placego group... may reduce postpartum blood loss, as compared with placebo... to a considerable extent as compared to various controls...decreased significantly the bleeding time."
Personally, I am more interested in whether it works or not, and consider it premature to speculate how it works until such times as it is proven if it works. If one reads the quotes above, they mean nothing at all as they all are unquantifiable. "Is significantly better" means precisely nothing, and what we need are facts such as "is 33% better than placebo", and then we need that trial to be replicated a number of times, by different authorities, to assess and all the results subjected to peer review.
The only place where a number is recorded in Peanuts long post was a claim that haemotomas in Turkeys were reduced as follows;Peanut wrote:In a study of homeopathically potentised remedies the incidence of haematomas was reduced by 30 % in
turkeys during transportation. The study was randomised, placebo controlled and double blinded."
It seems quite a claim to make.
Remember the golden rule of homoeopathy, " Homeopathic medicines are prescribed individually by the study of the whole person, according to basic temperament and responses"
And here's something else I don't understand. Did the guys who conducted the trial give all the turkeys the same homoeopathic remedy, or did they give each turkey a different remedy specific to his or her temperament? If the latter, how did they determine the temperament of the turkeys, and if the former and just gave them all the same remedy, surely that's breaking the golden rule of homoeopathy?0 -
Myksyk,
Your colleague makes a fair point that factors such as publication bias may be likely to increase the perceived effect size when purported lower-quality studies are included. This is a problem with many trials, not just of homeopathy.
However, it's not quite right to assume that such an effect will invalidate an analysis - after all, the abstract of the Linde study specifically takes this into account ("The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10).").
Incidentally, in relation to the Shang study (triumphantly headlined in the Lancet as "The End of Homeopathy"), a mere 8 Homeopathic trials were actually used in determining the odds ratio for each type of treatment.
Also, as is the case with most of the meta-analysis, we don't actually have information on what studies were included, which makes it rather difficult to verify independently.
Jawlie please, look at my posts, the quote marks are there to indicate a reference to someone else's material.jawlie wrote:Rather curiously, he now seems to provide a mind boggling number of other studies which he now claims prove homoeopathy works, although previously he had said that this "could" be the first hard evidence. I'm confused.
And, yet again, my basic point is being mis-represented - I am not claiming that Homeopathy is 'proven' (or even very likely) to be effective, only that the statement that 'There is no evidence of it's effectiveness' is highly unlikely to be true. There is evidence, yet it is contentious.
Not so - although that statement is quite a generalisation itself.jawlie wrote:If one looks at the evidence produced, it is all non specific and generalised.
How can something ever be 'proven' to work if no-one speculates about it, and then tests those assumptions?jawlie wrote:Personally, I am more interested in whether it works or not, and consider it premature to speculate how it works until such times as it is proven if it works.
Oh come on... really...jawlie wrote:If one reads the quotes above, they mean nothing at all as they all are unquantifiable. "Is significantly better" means precisely nothing, and what we need are facts such as "is 33% better than placebo", and then we need that trial to be replicated a number of times, by different authorities, to assess and all the results subjected to peer review.
Apologies but I thought reposting the entire papers would be a tad too much - I assume people can go look them up themselves, where available, and come to their own conclusions about the numbers involved.jawlie wrote:The only place where a number is recorded in Peanuts long post was a claim that haemotomas in Turkeys were reduced as follows;
You're not wrong - how do you individualise for a turkey?jawlie wrote:Remember the golden rule of homoeopathy, " Homeopathic medicines are prescribed individually by the study of the whole person, according to basic temperament and responses"
But you must remember the underlying purpose for the 'individualisation' is to get the best match of symptoms displayed in the patient vs. symptoms produced by the drug, with particular attention paid to recording even minor details.
This is called the 'totality of symptoms' in the literature, and is the over-arching reason for the individualisation of each diagnosis.
There have been many offshoots and alternative versions of the basic core of Homeopathy since it started in the late 19th century. Some of these will claim that in a disease affecting a large group, a pandemic for example, individualisation for each patient is unnecessary due to the fact that the totality of symptoms may be the same, or very similar, in each case. So as long as the symptoms are the same (including all relevant minor details, 'modalities' etc.), then you can just prescribe one drug for all of them.
This does seem to be a point of contention amongst homeopaths, however.
In relation to in-vitro studies, it again appears difficult how you would reconcile a homeopathic diagnosis to a petri dish. But, if you were approaching it from a conventional perspective, you would obviously be aware of what types of drugs were likely to affect the particular type of specimen you were testing. In a similar sense, the symptomology of a given homeopathic remedy will give pointers on what situations it may be thought to be appropriate to trial it in.
For material and physical based studies it's a lot easier - if it is possible to physically differentiate between two homeopathic remedies, or between a homeopathic remedy and a dummy, then we don't need to get involved with clinical diagnoses.0 -
Peanut wrote:Myksyk,
You're not wrong - how do you individualise for a turkey?
This is called the 'totality of symptoms' in the literature, and is the over-arching reason for the individualisation of each diagnosis.
...Some of these will claim that in a disease affecting a large group, a pandemic for example, individualisation for each patient is unnecessary due to the fact that the totality of symptoms may be the same, or very similar, in each case. So as long as the symptoms are the same (including all relevant minor details, 'modalities' etc.), then you can just prescribe one drug for all of them.
This does seem to be a point of contention amongst homeopaths, however.
My understanding of homoeopathy is that homoeopaths believe they treat the cause, and not the symptoms, of a disease. The belief is that the symptoms are manifestations of an underlying cause, and in different people, the cause will be different for the same symptoms. Hence the belief to treat the individual, and the cause, and not the symptoms.
Quite how homoeopaths can believe this and then tell you, with their serious faces on, that homoeopathy "works" ( whatever that means) for animals too is one of those questions which I have never heard explained.
I once had dinner with the owner of a large homoeopathic company. We discussed homoeopathy and he waxed lyrical to the whole table, with his serious face on, about the theory behind homoeopathy and how it was all scientifically based, and this was interspersed with anecdote about how it worked on animals "so it must be more than placebo" and how the Queen Mother used it nod nod wink wink, to imply that it was largely responsible for her longevity.
So I asked him if it was true, in homoeopathy, that less really was more effective for curing disease and that, for example, the 200th potency was actually stronger than the 6th potency? He maintained his serious face and said that this was quite true and, in fact, the 200th potency could be quite "dangerous" as it was very powerful.
So I asked him a question. I asked him if it were true that less is more effective in homoeopathic terms, why did all his boxes of pills say "take two tablets"? Why not say "take one tablet" or "take half a tablet" as he had claimed this would be more effective? Surely his company was not giving medical instructions to its customers which actually made the remedy less effective that he claimed it could be, to merely sell more tablets?
Now his serious face changed to an embarassed face and he mumbled that it was mainly based on "research" that people liked to take two tablets, and that was the reason why they gave those instructions.
Much as those involved in the homoeopathic world might like us to believe otherwise, homoeopathy is a business. It's big business and makes big bucks for those involved.
I am not saying that all homoeopathy should be rubbished because one owner of one company is a charlatan, but I have also noticed that when a homoeopath gets something serious wrong with themselves, such is the strength of their convictions that they rush to the nearest conventional hospital for conventional drugs and conventional treatment.
It is over 160 years since Doctor Samuel Hahnemann has died, and in that time the world has made enormous advances in medicine, transport, communications etc etc, and life expectancey has increased by almost 20 years for us in the west. We have telephones, trains, cars, planes, MRI machines, anti biotics, pain killers, triple heart bypass operations, computers, satellites, moon & mars landings etc etc etc.
In that time homoeopathy has seemed to make no advances whatever and is still selling anecdote, and the biggest advance it seems to make is to come up with a theory ( ie not proven) that water has some sort of memory. Quite how this proves homoeopathy is effective seems unclear.
My guess is that in the next 160 years homoeopathy will still be selling anecdote and will still not have any clear evidence in the form of a double blind independent clinical trial subject to peer review and repeatable to obtain the same levels of evidence for their claims.
It seems incredible that such a large industry has not done this in 160 years, or at least they have never published the results of such a clinical trial if they have. Is it possible that such trials have been undertaken and the results not published by the homoeopathic industry?
Could someone who tells his customers to take two tablets to maximise his profits, (& thus make their medicine less effective by his own admission), choose to not publish results which might be embarrassing for him?0 -
As a footnote, the whole theory of water memory, originally proposed by Jacques Benveniste, has an interesting history. Although Benveniste claimed to have scientifically proved that water had this property, & the journal "Nature" published the results, independent scientists who subsequently examined Benvenistes work in his own lab claimed his science was "pseudoscience". Subsequently, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce his results.
Quite why the theory remains to appear to have credibility seems uncertain.0 -
What's the problem with this?jawlie wrote:My understanding of homoeopathy is that homoeopaths believe they treat the cause, and not the symptoms, of a disease. The belief is that the symptoms are manifestations of an underlying cause, and in different people, the cause will be different for the same symptoms. Hence the belief to treat the individual, and the cause, and not the symptoms.
Quite how homoeopaths can believe this and then tell you, with their serious faces on, that homoeopathy "works" ( whatever that means) for animals too is one of those questions which I have never heard explained.
The symptoms are used to select the most relevant medication, not that much different from a conventional diagnosis, except that a wider range of symptoms are considered. You can use mostly the same procedure for an animal, although of course it may be more challenging to get a complete picture.
Saying something like the "200th dilution is stronger" is not the same thing as saying "half a tablet is more effective than two".jawlie wrote:I once had dinner with the owner of a large homoeopathic company.
...
So I asked him a question. I asked him if it were true that less is more effective in homoeopathic terms, why did all his boxes of pills say "take two tablets"? Why not say "take one tablet" or "take half a tablet" as he had claimed this would be more effective? Surely his company was not giving medical instructions to its customers which actually made the remedy less effective that he claimed it could be, to merely sell more tablets?
Now his serious face changed to an embarassed face and he mumbled that it was mainly based on "research" that people liked to take two tablets, and that was the reason why they gave those instructions.
The first refers to the preparation process, the second is the dosage of a given "potency".
You understand that many substances (not just high dilutions) can be effective up to a certain dosage, beyond which, taking any more is useless or has little extra effect.
It is generally acknowleged by homeopaths that frequency of dosage is more important than quantitiy of the dose itself, although it does seem essential that there would in fact be a minimum dosage quantity as well.
I think it's an unfortunate legacy from the 19th century that causes people to take sides with this on one extreme or the other. The colourful language used by Homeopaths in that period railing against established medicine (at the time) created a perception of antagonism that continues to today.jawlie wrote:..
I am not saying that all homoeopathy should be rubbished because one owner of one company is a charlatan, but I have also noticed that when a homoeopath gets something serious wrong with themselves, such is the strength of their convictions that they rush to the nearest conventional hospital for conventional drugs and conventional treatment.
There is no need to discard conventional medicine - I really don't believe that those from around the time of Hahnemann would deny any modern, effective form of medicine if they were alive today - they were far from stupid people.
I completely agree that there is no current theory that provides a good, easily testable process for investigating the claim.jawlie wrote:...In that time homoeopathy has seemed to make no advances whatever and is still selling anecdote, and the biggest advance it seems to make is to come up with a theory ( ie not proven) that water has some sort of memory. Quite how this proves homoeopathy is effective seems unclear.
I disagree.jawlie wrote:My guess is that in the next 160 years homoeopathy will still be selling anecdote and will still not have any clear evidence in the form of a double blind independent clinical trial subject to peer review and repeatable to obtain the same levels of evidence for their claims.
I suspect that within 15-20 years, there will be strong evidence for homeopathic efficiacy, the results being identified from physical processes.
I fully understand why people would think otherwise.
I don't think Benveniste ever published a coherent theory of how exactly the claimed effect may have worked. However, the work on Histamine dilutions was continued, with both positive and negative results.jawlie wrote:Subsequently, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce his results. Quite why the theory remains to appear to have credibility seems uncertain.0 -
Advertisement
-
Only time will tell whether or not homoeopathy will or will not be able to come up with acceptable proof, beyond anecdote, in the next 15 or 20 years. Having had over 200 years to come up with proof so far, and not having been able to produce any, it seems unclear why you feel the next "15 to 20" years will suddenly yield such proof.
By any measure it is highly strange that out of Boiron and all the other rich and succesful homoeopathic companies the world over, not one has ever published the results of any properly conducted and accepted independent double blind and peer reviewed clinical trials in the way that every single manufacturer of conventional medicine does for every single product.
Might that be because it has never occurred to a single one of them to undertake them? Or could it be because the results might not back up their claims for their products?0
Advertisement