"Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy" story

Peanut

"...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..."

Was in the Herald few days ago and also reported in the Independent online
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=552905

Seems like the trials themselves were done in 2001, but the revised paper is only being published now.
http://www.amhmg.org/Histamin2004.pdf

davros

[stunned silence ]

I wonder if there will be a rush of reputable labs to confirm this paper. It's a real risk to one's scientific career dabbling in this area.

ecksor

davros wrote:

I wonder if there will be a rush of reputable labs to confirm this paper. It's a real risk to one's scientific career dabbling in this area.

Really? If the research is properly conducted then I don't see why it should be. I was asking one doctor about alternative therapies before who put down the lack of useful information about them to the fact that you didn't have large pharmaceutical companies funding research into it as you do with conventional therapies.

sliabh

ecksor wrote:

I was asking one doctor about alternative therapies before who put down the lack of useful information about them to the fact that you didn't have large pharmaceutical companies funding research into it as you do with conventional therapies.

It may be a chicken and egg thing but the reason there has not been extensive research is that basic research shows these ideas are usually baseless.

If there was something to them then the likes of big phara companies who always are interested in making money would be falling over themselves to spend money on research. Even if they can't make money on basic homeopathy then the mechanism by which it works (if it did) could open up other areas of research and lead to new products.

I will get hung fo this one now but
for all it's other sins market based economies are very good at spotting and exploiting opportunities. "Follow the money" is usually a good way to see what is believed to have potential. And the money says this is bunk

ecksor

sliabh wrote:

If there was something to them then the likes of big phara companies who always are interested in making money would be falling over themselves to spend money on research. Even if they can't make money on basic homeopathy then the mechanism by which it works (if it did) could open up other areas of research and lead to new products.

Wouldn't it make more sense just to get into the homeopathy business, which can generate revenue without needing the sorts of trials and studies that someone like the FDA would require?

sliabh wrote:

for all it's other sins market based economies are very good at spotting and exploiting opportunities. "Follow the money" is usually a good way to see what is believed to have potential. And the money says this is bunk

That's not a conclusive argument though, it really just tries to explain the lack of information but you're implying that it implies what the information would be if we had it. I could probably swap the chicken and the egg around and make a case that those economists are reluctant to invest in something with no track record.

sliabh

ecksor wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense just to get into the homeopathy business, which can generate revenue without needing the sorts of trials and studies that someone like the FDA would require?

But not for the pharma companies. Homeopathy is about delivery. The one way in that it is believed to have placebo effectiveness is that the person administering it will sit with the "patient" and provide a sympathetic ear to their problems. It's generally felt that this personal touch is what leads most users of this approach feeling better. And that is not really what a pharma company want's to get into. Besides they can't patent the product or differentiate it from their competitors so they could never build or sustain a market for high priced distilled water

ecksor wrote:

That's not a conclusive argument though, it really just tries to explain the lack of information

I wouldn't say it is. But I am assuming everyone else will point out this is only the third time in 200 years some one has managed to publish a proper peer reviewed paper on this. And we have yet to see the research reproduced. Which in my book means this is bunk.

I was just providing a fresh way of looking at this.

ecksor wrote:

I could probably swap the chicken and the egg around and make a case that those economists are reluctant to invest in something with no track record.

Nah, there always are investors willing to sink money into new, unproven and risky technologies like steam engines, railways, the telegraph, metal ships, wireless, motor cars, powered flight, transistors, computers, the internet, biotechnology and lately nanotechnology.

ecksor

sliabh wrote:

But not for the pharma companies. Homeopathy is about delivery. The one way in that it is believed to have placebo effectiveness is that the person administering it will sit with the "patient" and provide a sympathetic ear to their problems. It's generally felt that this personal touch is what leads most users of this approach feeling better. And that is not really what a pharma company want's to get into. Besides they can't patent the product or differentiate it from their competitors so they could never build or sustain a market for high priced distilled water

Now you appear to be explaining quite well why pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be interested in getting into homeopathy at all for reasons totally apart from the suspected effectiveness of the product, which puts us back to square one.

sliabh wrote:

I was just providing a fresh way of looking at this.

That's cool, I'm just providing my reasons for thinking it doesn't make sense.

sliabh wrote:

Nah, there always are investors willint to sink money into new, unproven and risky technologies like steam engines, railways, the telegraph, metal ships, wireless, motor cars, powered flight, transistors, computers, the internet, biotechnology and lately nanotechnology.

My answer originally was under the assumption that you meant pharmaceutical investment only. In terms of general venture capital, as I said it makes sense just to get into the homeopathy business and make money than try to prove its effectiveness scientifically (especially when you run the risk of debunking it and killing your golden goose). Your point about not being able to patent the product would also appear to support that case.

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

Really? If the research is properly conducted then I don't see why it should be.

Quite. But the history of the few papers that have been peer reviewed in the last few decades has been one of failure to replicate, not unlike claims about cold fusion. Let's wait and see if it is replicated. It's interesting but I feel the appropriate position is one of healthy skepticism.

davros

ecksor wrote:

Really? If the research is properly conducted then I don't see why it should be.

Because scientists are human? I presume it's quite normal for experiments to be published and quietly refuted by subsequent trials. But it's pretty brave for a scientist to stick her neck out and publish something that appears to justify homeopathy. It invites a flurry of media attention before the results are in, not to mention bitter attack from fellow scientists.

And when the experiments are not replicated, what do you do? Stand over your results and look like a fanatic or back down and look like a poor experimenter?

Proving the "wrong" result can really follow you around. Ask Benveniste or Fleischmann/Pons.

Poisonwood

'Scuse my bitchy dogmatism but I'll bet my daughter's latest fallen tooth that this is voodoo science. However, it has been published (which btw is neither a necessary nor sufficient criteria for good science) and should be taken seriously. What comes to mind is that when people do this science it hasn't been replicated under stringent conditions. Bienveniste and his team failed and Ennis and her team's results failed to be supported when Horizon repeated it. BTW, I don't agree at all with the idea in the article that the horizon programme was 'trial by media'. Good scientific methodology is good scientific methodology ... the horizon programme followed very exacting procedures that were very transparent. Top scientists were involved and it seemed to go above and beyond normal everyday procedures. Not all peer-reviewed, published material is good (or even adequate)- there are a host of examples ... and one paper is just that - one paper. Let's wait for the substantial number of replicated studies.

BTW, Happy Birthday to me .....

Peanut

When reading about the various homeopathic trials that have been done in the past, a lot of different methodologies have been used.

e.g. Some trials tried to match single homeopathic dilutions to specific diseases, others tried to treat a single complaint but prescribe different homeopathic dilutions based on the entirety of the patient/subject's symptoms (the traditional approach).

Some of these approachs may be more conducive to positive results than the others, certainly it was claimed in the past that trials which replicated the standard homeopathic prescribing model (i.e. patient interviews etc) fared better than the attempts of matching a specific substance to what seemed like a specific complaint.

One interesting thing about this latest paper is that the method described does not seem to mention the sucession or shaking of the solution at each progressive stage of dilution, a pre-requisite for preparation of homeopathic dilutions, although it does appear that the dilutions were prepared using serial dilution with the same quantities of liquids at each step (another requirement in traditional homeopathic preparations).

ecksor

davros wrote:

Because scientists are human? I presume it's quite normal for experiments to be published and quietly refuted by subsequent trials. But it's pretty brave for a scientist to stick her neck out and publish something that appears to justify homeopathy. It invites a flurry of media attention before the results are in, not to mention bitter attack from fellow scientists.

So it's basically some sort of prejudice or snobbery?

davros wrote:

And when the experiments are not replicated, what do you do? Stand over your results and look like a fanatic or back down and look like a poor experimenter?

If such a scenario is quite normal, as you presume above, then you run the risk publishing any results.

davros wrote:

Proving the "wrong" result can really follow you around. Ask Benveniste or Fleischmann/Pons.

I'm not familiar with those I'm afraid, I'll look them up.

Gordon

A friend of a friend of mine is going out with a homeopathic vet. I thought that would only happen in LA.

Myksyk

Gordon wrote:

A friend of mine is going out with a homeopathic vet.

Does that mean he fought in the Thousand Dilutions War?

Peanut

Gordon wrote:

A friend of a friend of mine is going out with a homeopathic vet. I thought that would only happen in LA.

More likely to find one in the UK or Ireland...

davros

ecksor wrote:

So it's basically some sort of prejudice or snobbery?

Perhaps. But there is also competition for funding, the fear of contradiction, clash of personalities... The manner of presentation can be a factor. The late Thomas Gold often got people's backs up by seeming to claim to know more about a field than the experts in that field (obituary).

ecksor wrote:

If such a scenario is quite normal, as you presume above, then you run the risk publishing any results.

Not any results, just those challenging scientific orthodoxy. There is quite a heated debate going on in the letters page in New Scientist at the moment because some guy is claiming to be able to observe photons in wave and particle mode simultaneously and is thus guilty of extreme hubris, pitting himself against Bohr and other gods of quantum physics.

ecksor wrote:

I'm not familiar with those I'm afraid, I'll look them up.

Wired ran a good article on what happened to Pons and Fleischmann and the whole research topic of Cold Fusion after the hype died down.

sliabh

davros wrote:

Proving the "wrong" result can really follow you around. Ask Benveniste or Fleischmann/Pons.

Fleischmann and Pons were guilty of making extraordinary claims without the requisite extraordinary evidence. And they were real sloppy.

There was something interesting happening in their experiments but they went for the most high profile explanation possible "It's Cold Fusion!" even when the basic evidence suggested is wasn't really what was happening - i.e. there was no neutrino emissions.

There is nothing wrong with being wrong, but they got burned for their publicity seeking and bad approach to practicing science.

jawlie

I'm not sure what the form is here for rejuvenating old threads, but I stumbled across this one.

Any fule kno homoeopathy is nonsense and it doesn't take research to realise it. Homoeopaths believe that less is more, ie. what they call the 200th potency is, they claim, much stronger than, say, the more common 6th potency.

If they really believe this, why does it say "take two pills" on the bottle? Why not half a pill, or a tenth of a pill, or even get a friend to wave a pill in the far corner of the room?

Ask a GP how many people who attend his surgery will get well with no intervention from the GP.

Zillah

jawlie wrote:

I'm not sure what the form is here for rejuvenating old threads, but I stumbled across this one.

Holy pointless ressurection batman!

Any fule kno homoeopathy is nonsense and it doesn't take research to realise it. Homoeopaths believe that less is more, ie. what they call the 200th potency is, they claim, much stronger than, say, the more common 6th potency.

While I'd be suprised (stunned beyond belief) if you were wrong, simply declaring it false does not make it so.

If they really believe this, why does it say "take two pills" on the bottle? Why not half a pill, or a tenth of a pill, or even get a friend to wave a pill in the far corner of the room?

Perhaps some research in this area could reveal the answer if there is one to be had.

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

...
If they really believe this, why does it say "take two pills" on the bottle? Why not half a pill, or a tenth of a pill, or even get a friend to wave a pill in the far corner of the room?
...

This is a common misconception.
It is not believed that the original substance is the "active ingredient".

If it was, then these arguments would be valid, but the idea is that the water and/or alcohol that is used to coat the pills becomes modified in someway so as to create a new drug, something like a shadow of the original drug.

This is why they indicate that you still need to take more than a tenth of a pill for example.

jawlie

So why , then, do they claim the 30th or 200th potency is much "stronger" than the 6th potency?

Peanut

Just because it has more dilution steps, not really because it has less of the original substance in it (although it will).

A substance having gone through more dilution steps is thought to have a different effect from one having gone through less.
(for what it's worth, the effect is not thought to be linear, but more of a wave type progression as dilutions progress, with peaks and troughs of 'effectiveness')

Simple dilution is not homeopathy. It has to be done in a step-wise manner, with the same volume of dilutant shaken at each step. There are variations on this, but that is the basic hard & fast rule.

(skeptic forum bait ahoy! -)
Because it is done this way, it could introduce a possibility of something happening, as long as there are additional memory or linkage-like properties of the water/alcohol that are not yet understood. If it wasn't done this way, then this would not be possible.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

(skeptic forum bait ahoy! -)
Because it is done this way, it could introduce a possibility of something happening, as long as there are additional memory or linkage-like properties of the water/alcohol that are not yet understood. If it wasn't done this way, then this would not be possible.

From this description, this sounds like a process perfectly suited to double-blind testing. Its curious, therefore, that double-blinded testing is apparently such an obstacle.

Peanut

Perfectly suited? Maybe, maybe not.
If you have the right test setup, then yes!

The awkward thing about repeatability is that you need to have the same working environment for all tests. But in the real world, this is not always possible, especially when you may be unaware of all the factors involved.

When you think you have the same test setup, same subjects, same drugs, same procedure etc., there maybe something different in the test environment that you are unaware of and/or unable to control. It should be clear that this is especially true when the subject is a living thing.

If we do not have a correct test setup for something, then we can't expect to get a definitive answer from such a test.
--

Of course, it's completely fair to say that there is not a good enough theoretical basis, in something like homeopathy, that would tell you how to construct a workable test.

The homeopaths will say that you need to "individualise" a remedy to a patient, that is, select a remedy based on that specific patient, and not just on a major symptom or group of symptoms that might be characteristic of a particular disease.

The problem then is that this process is bordering on artistry and gives little leeway for the rigorous examination of the cause & effect of administering a given remedy/drug.

Now, when a study is done that ignores the above and does not "individualise", the homeopaths will (rightly) say that it was not done according to their rules, and therefore the results are invalid.

So unless some way is found to make the ideas in homeopathy more "testable", any results either way (and there are lots of conflicting studies), should be taken with a grain of salt. (or is that a pill of sugar? )

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

The awkward thing about repeatability is that you need to have the same working environment for all tests.

Not really. Double-blinding is a technique which can be and is used to a stunning degree of accuracy with "conventional" medicine. There are well-established methods to remove the statistical uncertainties from the reality that the actual patients are the only uincontrollable factor not actually being tested.

If a solution should work when preparted one way, but not another, then you double-blind the two preparations and test. If no clear difference is repeatedly found after running across a reasonable population-sample in multiple tests, then there can be no other conclusion other than that the claim is bunk.

But in the real world, this is not always possible, especially when you may be unaware of all the factors involved.

If you're unaware of the factors involved, then its effectively impossible to claim that homeopathy is an effective counter to anything. The best you can say is that it might be effective but it might just be background noise.

When you think you have the same test setup, same subjects, same drugs, same procedure etc., there maybe something different in the test environment that you are unaware of and/or unable to control. It should be clear that this is especially true when the subject is a living thing.

I'm aware of that. The point is, however, that this is a common hurdle for all medical trials. I find it hard to credit that conventional medicine can overcume these difficulties and estabilsh its credentials time after time using double-blinding to great effect, but that when we move to homeopathy, all of a sudden the same techniques become massively more uncertain. Regardless of what is being tested, the uncertainty factors are comparable if not identical....and yet somehow we should believe that with coventional medicine we can get around this but with homeopathy its a different case?

If we do not have a correct test setup for something, then we can't expect to get a definitive answer from such a test.

And yet believers in homeopathy complain about there being some witch-hunt against their beliefs!!!

How does that work exactly?

"Oh...we can't reliably test our claims, and we can't show that it produces any better results than no treatment at all, but we're being victimised by not being treated like a real curative technique".

When homeopathy is treated like a real candidate to be a curative technique, it fails. It makes claims like "the solution only works when prepared in this way", but when it is prepared in that way, it can't be shown to be any more effective than a solution prepared the worng way, or indeed just straightforward unprepared water.

Of course, it's completely fair to say that there is not a good enough theoretical basis, in something like homeopathy, that would tell you how to construct a workable test.

If there is sufficient basis to claim that a technique works, then there is sufficient basis to test the claim that a technique works, unless by "works" we mean "has an effect indistinguishable from background noise"!

The homeopaths will say that you need to "individualise" a remedy to a patient, that is, select a remedy based on that specific patient, and not just on a major symptom or group of symptoms that might be characteristic of a particular disease.

And? Either their technique is distinguishable from randomi background noise, or its not. If the prescriber doesn't know whether he's giving his patient a "solution", a "misprepared-so-it-shouldn't-work solution", a "prepared-to-a-strengh-homeopaths-say-is-ineffective solution" or "plain water", then the same tecnique applied over multiple patients should produce clearly distinguishable results where there is a significant statistical difference in the recovert of patients treated correctly than those who were treated incorrectly.

The problem then is that this process is bordering on artistry

Meaning what? That whether or not the process works is pretty hit-and-miss...to the point that its success-rate is the same as backgrouind noise?

Either it makes a noticeable difference, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground. If there is a noticeable difference, then said difference can be noticed.

Now, when a study is done that ignores the above and does not "individualise", the homeopaths will (rightly) say that it was not done according to their rules, and therefore the results are invalid.

And yet the homeopaths are incapable of running a properly double-blinded test themselves?

They can point out what's wrong with the tests, but can't actually run one themselves without those flaws??? Amazing.

<edit to add>
I read up some about the tests the article was originally on about. Interestingly, when the tests were checked, the double-blinding was faulted. New tests with differently-designed tests were run. The pro-homeopathy crew involved were asked if there were problems with the test-design before the tests were run. They could not point to any. The tests failed to show anything, at which point cries of it being a corrupt whitewash victimisation-of-homeopathy began.

How does that work? Why not point out the flaws in the testing scenario before the testing rather than say "no its ok" and then complain about them when the results come out?

More importantly, why not show why non-properly-double-blinded tests should be believed over and above these properly-double-blinded "corrupt" tests???
</edit>

So unless some way is found to make the ideas in homeopathy more "testable",

Make it so the homeopath is doing his job, noting his results, but is doubly-removed from the preparation of what he is prescribing so that he has no way of knowing if its what its claimed to be, a completely falsely-prepared solution, or just "unprepared" water.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

... There are well-established methods to remove the statistical uncertainties from the reality that the actual patients are the only uincontrollable factor not actually being tested.

The textbook 'reality' that the patients are the only variable, however, is not the practical reality.

Even if it were, it still remains by far the most complex changing factor in a given test. Every new person involved is effectively a new test setup. Just imagine that you were testing a drug that only worked on 5% of the population, and within that 5%, the drug would produce a range of effects depending on that particular subject. You would have a hard time producing a conclusive result unless you had a large enough sample size, and the expertise to distinguish the genuine drug effects from other background noise (effectively increasing the required sample size).

Now as to the other variables - There is often a consistent and flagrant disregard for the methodology of preparing the homeopathic drug. You would imagine that, even with a skeptical bias, you should try to adhere as closely as possible to the accepted procedure for the most basic function of all - manufacture. Now, if we are trying to test whether there is an effect that relies on the square power progression of a dilution, then we can comprehensively ruin any chance of seeing this by not ensuring that there's exactly the same quantity of dilutatant at each stage. And while we're at it, why not also ignore the succussion (agitation of solution) at each step, and replace it with centrifuging, or, well.. why not just stirring? After all, there's none of the original substance left, so what should it matter?

And last but by no means least - It's widely accepted amongst homeopaths that certain substances, especially coffee, will neutralise the effect of a homeopathic drug. What is surprising is that, even with such a specific contra-indication, this restriction is rarely if ever mentioned in reports of clinical trials (in the UK, 80% of the adult population drink coffee once a week). Again, if trials do not take major points of the system they are testing into account, then they can hardly have been said to be representative of the effectiveness or not, of such a system.

bonkey wrote:

Regardless of what is being tested, the uncertainty factors are comparable if not identical....and yet somehow we should believe that with coventional medicine we can get around this but with homeopathy its a different case?

The uncertainty factors are not comparable. As I have said above, many tests do not actually test homeopathy, due to failings of basic methodology. The second major flaw is that, most tests do not individualise to the patient.
A comparison would be testing a drug for a specific cancer on the general population. You might see a slight degree of effectiveness, but clearly it would be far less conclusive than testing it on a sample group diagnosed with the condition.

Fair enough, you might think... let the homeopaths prescribe according to individualisation.
Yet when a trial like this does show effectiveness, it is dismissed as either experimenter bias or faulty setup.
Who can win in such a situation? (of course it's to be expected that there will be a % of badly designed setups present in both positive and negative outcome trials)

The third flaw is not taking into account patient behaviour. Any one, or a combination of these three, is enough to
systematically fail a trial.

bonkey wrote:

"Oh...we can't reliably test our claims, and we can't show that it produces any better results than no treatment at all, but we're being victimised by not being treated like a real curative technique".

In your opinion.

bonkey wrote:

When homeopathy is treated like a real candidate to be a curative technique, it fails. It makes claims like "the solution only works when prepared in this way", but when it is prepared in that way, it can't be shown to be any more effective than a solution prepared the worng way, or indeed just straightforward unprepared water.

as above.
When successful results are dismissed out of hand, it can be easy to say "it has failed".

bonkey wrote:

And? Either their technique is distinguishable from randomi background noise, or its not. If the prescriber doesn't know whether he's giving his patient a "solution", a "misprepared-so-it-shouldn't-work solution", a "prepared-to-a-strengh-homeopaths-say-is-ineffective solution" or "plain water", then the same tecnique applied over multiple patients should produce clearly distinguishable results where there is a significant statistical difference in the recovert of patients treated correctly than those who were treated incorrectly.

Agreed, but again, if the test setup is wrong, the sample size is too small/inappropriate for the specific drug, and most of your samples are anti-doting their drugs, then you are absolutely guaranteed inconclusive results.

bonkey wrote:

<edit to add>
I read up some about the tests the article was originally on about. Interestingly, when the tests were checked, the double-blinding was faulted. New tests with differently-designed tests were run. The pro-homeopathy crew involved were asked if there were problems with the test-design before the tests were run. They could not point to any. The tests failed to show anything, at which point cries of it being a corrupt whitewash victimisation-of-homeopathy began.

How does that work? Why not point out the flaws in the testing scenario before the testing rather than say "no its ok" and then complain about them when the results come out?

The original experimenters were comprised of a mixed group. They were not all homeopaths.
And, for sure, they should have realised the criticality of using the correct preparation technique.

jawlie

One thing I have noticed about those who make claims for homoeopathy is that they are full of anecdote and suggestion as to its effectiveness. "You know", the say confidentially "the Queen mother was a great believer in homoeopathy and she live to be over a hundred" or "it works on animals too so it's not just something psychological" and so on and so on.

The fact is that there is appears no rational explanation for it beyond and anecdote, and those companies who make big profits from it choose not want to undertake any kind of double blind study with peer review for one reason only, and that is they are afraid that the results are likely to prove homoeopathy is of dubious benefit. And they know it.

Peanut

I don't think it's fair to say that the homeopathic manufacturers are not interested in research, google the Boiron Institute for example.

Regardless, it's generally not ideal that manufacturers should fund trials, as this leads to inevitable accusations of bias.

This should be the job of independent labs, either academic or clinical, with organisations like the British Homeopathic Association acting on behalf of the industry, disseminating research results (see the Research links on the left, especially the Clinical Research link).
(of course, in the UK, a lot of research is done by the five homeopathic hospitals)

It's up to you on who you choose to believe, but it's certainly not the case that research isn't being done.

jawlie

Peanut wrote:

it's generally not ideal that manufacturers should fund trials, as this leads to inevitable accusations of bias.

This should be the job of independent labs, either academic or clinical, with organisations like the British Homeopathic Association acting on behalf of the industry, disseminating research results (see the Research links on the left, especially the Clinical Research link).
(of course, in the UK, a lot of research is done by the five homeopathic hospitals)

The point about a proper independent clinical double blind trial is that it has to be funded from somewhere. If a company like, for example, brand leader Nelsons, were to have positive, independent, irrefutable proof that their products worked, they would make a fortune. And they have the ability to fund such a study, but choose not to. The reason they choose not to is that they are afraid the results might prove that the claims they do currently make for their products would actually be disproved.

And so they continue to spout their anecdote and pseudo science. This is a quote from their website ( http://www.nelsonshomoeopathy.co.uk/pages/whatis1.shtml ) : " Homeopathic medicines are prescribed individually by the study of the whole person, according to basic temperament and responses" . Yet elsewhere on their website ( http://www.nelsonshomoeopathy.co.uk/pages/products.shtml) they have a whole range of creams and pills, using exactly the same "remedies", which they claim work for anyone, without reference to basic temperament and response.

For example; "Nelsons Coldenza is a homeopathic remedy specifically designed to bring fast, effective relief for the symptoms of cold and flu. For best results take immediately at the onset of flu or the early stages of a cold; keep warm and drink plenty of fluids."

Think about this. They are claiming to have found a cure for the common cold and, apparantly, 'flu. If it were true, it would be worth a fortune and bring huge benefits to millions. Yet they make these claims and, curiously, choose not to fund an independent study to prove their validity, as mentioned above. A mystery!

Peanut wrote:

It's up to you on who you choose to believe, but it's certainly not the case that research isn't being done.

And you are right, it is up to us whether or not we "believe " in homoeopathy, rather like we can choose to believe in ghosts, or God, or the tooth fairy. No one chooses to "believe" that, for example, anti biotics work. We know they do.

Peanut

I think you are right to an extent that they may not get so much involved in research because of the contentious nature of the results.

I doubt that they would be able to prove or disprove anything, if they decided to go down this route. Because there have been numerous contradictory studies done already, it may not add much to the debate. They may have enough funding, but would prefer to use this on promoting their products.

It is also true that the homeopathic prescriptions are meant to be individualised to the patient. However, there are some exceptions to this, especially with something like Arnica, which was thought to have a general affinity for wound healing... So it's a guideline as opposed to a strict rule, but most people who study it would be against that type of non-individualised prescribing.

Re: the common cold, they are specificially not claiming a 'cure' - there are numerous other cold remedies on the market that make similar claims, yet they all provide mostly symptomatic relief, so I don't think there's any contradiction there.

jawlie

Peanut wrote:

Because there have been numerous contradictory studies done already, it may not add much to the debate. They may have enough funding, but would prefer to use this on promoting their products.

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.

Bar far the best way they could promote their products would be to have irrefutable proof, beyond doubt, that they actually do work.

Peanut wrote:

Re: the common cold, they are specificially not claiming a 'cure' - there are numerous other cold remedies on the market that make similar claims, yet they all provide mostly symptomatic relief, so I don't think there's any contradiction there.

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?