The Quackery of Homeopathy

[LJP07]

Dana Ullman, there is NO evidence that this works, and there NEVER will be any evidence. Any person who believes in this rubbish is deluded to science, and how dare you say we should stick to a scientific debate when all along Homeopathy is NOT REAL science.

 

Note above, I used the word "Believe" when describing Homeopathy. Yeah, that's right, you need belief, not fact to think it works, just like you need belief that God exists and made the world in 6 days and went on the dole on the seventh day.

[Dana Ullman]

Hey Pyrotex,

Which company makes a "homeopathic medicine" with histamine and aspirin (except perhaps in homeopathic doses)? As for eye of newt, that's funny...but how about the urine from a pregnant horse? Oh, that's right, that's Premarin (a conventional Rx). Or how about an explosive, such as nitroglycerin (oh, that's right, that modern cardiology, even though it was FIRST used as a medicine by homeopaths!).

 

As for "belief," I'm glad that some of you are honest and that you are basing your assumptions on theories, not research...and yet, have the chutzpah to consider yourself "defenders of science." Hmmmm.

 

As for Oscillococcinum, the use of duck liver and heart makes sense, at least from an epidemiological and biological point of view.

 

As for the high potenties, I bet some of you think that the atom bomb was a placebo 'cause there is no way that those little tiny things could create powerful effects, eh?

 

Sorry to rain on your parade here, but your grand marshall is naked.

[Moontanman]

Hey Pyrotex,

Which company makes a "homeopathic medicine" with histamine and aspirin (except perhaps in homeopathic doses)? As for eye of newt, that's funny...but how about the urine from a pregnant horse? Oh, that's right, that's Premarin (a conventional Rx). Or how about an explosive, such as nitroglycerin (oh, that's right, that modern cardiology, even though it was FIRST used as a medicine by homeopaths!).

 

As for "belief," I'm glad that some of you are honest and that you are basing your assumptions on theories, not research...and yet, have the chutzpah to consider yourself "defenders of science." Hmmmm.

 

As for Oscillococcinum, the use of duck liver and heart makes sense, at least from an epidemiological and biological point of view.

 

As for the high potenties, I bet some of you think that the atom bomb was a placebo 'cause there is no way that those little tiny things could create powerful effects, eh?

 

Sorry to rain on your parade here, but your grand marshall is naked.

 

Dana, I want to make sure we understand exactly what you mean by Homeopathy. I've seen what were simply herbal remedies hawked as homeopathic, I've also seen "homeopathic" medicine being sold with normal doses of regular medicine and a so called homeopathic dose of something odd, and I've read about the idea behind homeopathy being that what ever you mix up as a solution leaves some sort of vial force behind even though it's diluted to an extent that leaves doubt that there is even one molecule of the original "medicine" left in solution if it's the latter I would be interested if anyone has a real theory of why this might be so that uses real science to explain this discrepancy. The placebo effect can be very powerful and might even influence a double blind test if the participants believed strongly enough. BTW your idea of the atom bomb being equal some how to homeopathy doesn't hold water. If you are ever unlucky enough to be near a nuclear explosion I think you can be sure the "pit" of the bomb had more than homeopathic amounts of plutonium in it. I would be more than willing to drink a solution of plutonium if it were diluted down to the point that the solution didn't contain even one atom of plutonium. I don't think that radioactivity leaves behind some sort of vital force that would harm me in such low doses.

[freeztar]

What is "spirit-like dynamic force"? It can be thought to be the interconnective forces that link the body's various immune and defense functions.

 

And can you measure these "interconnective forces"? If not, homeopathy is pseudoscience at best.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm still waiting on that data regarding method of action and concentration thresholds for the effect. :thumbs_do

[Pyrotex]

...but how about the urine from a pregnant horse? Oh, that's right, that's Premarin (a conventional Rx). Or how about an explosive, such as nitroglycerin (oh, that's right, that modern cardiology, even though it was FIRST used as a medicine by homeopaths!)...

As for the high potenties, I bet some of you think that the atom bomb was a placebo 'cause there is no way that those little tiny things could create powerful effects, eh?...

Are you truly unaware of how illogical your questions are?

Or are you willfully trying to deceive? :thumbs_do :(

 

Neither the horse urine nor nitroglycerin are prescribed by conventional Rx in "homeopathic" super-dilutions. They would be worthless that way. The common use of these chemicals by homeopathy and conventional Rx is an accident of history. They did not even use them for treating the same conditions. Conventional Rx did not acquire the use from homeopathy.

 

Your analogy to atomic weapons is ludicrous and pointless.

 

Please take your magic ellixers and your shaman rattles and go find someone else to pester.

[LJP07]

A quick calculation proves that the degree of dilution is equivalent to ONE DROP of the "Medicine" diluted with water/ethanol/sugar to all the atoms in the Solar System. That is some factor of dilution guys!!! {Although there would be debate as to what the solar system encompasses but its still a large dilution none the less} This was shown in one of Richard Dawkins programmes.

[Dana Ullman]

It is interesting that so few people here seem to be informed about what homeopathy IS (and isn't) and even fewer are familiar with the body of clinical research, let alone basic science work. Instead, many of you seem to dwell in sitting on your theoretical point of view that assumes that homeopathic doses are "small." They aren't (they are only "small" if you do not account for the succussion process in-between each dilution).

 

I cannot help but sense that the people here are unfamiliar with the physics of water. I encourage you to check out the website of professor Martin Chaplin (lsbu.ac.uk/water/chaplin.html).

 

As for clinical evidence, consider:

 

(1) Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (1991). Clinical trials of homeopathy British Medical Journal, 302:316–323. This review of research assessed 105 trials, 81 of them positive [1]. The authors concluded: “Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible”, “the evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications”.

 

(2) Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.

 

(3) Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.

 

(4) Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633. (Ironically, this review of research that shows benefit from homeopathic medicines was co-authored by Dr. E. Ernst!

 

(5) Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.

 

By the way, the 200th dilution required 200 testtubes of water. Where some of you can say that such dilutions require more water than exists on earth is quite amusing. How authoritative!?

[InfiniteNow]

I'm still waiting on that data regarding method of action and the concentration thresholds required to achieve the desired effect.

 

 

By the way, as for your fifth reference above:

 

 

Homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis -- Miller et al. 322 (7279): 169 -- BMJ

Statistics in study were flawed

 

The basis for the study was a prestudy power calculation that required 120 patients to prove the hypothesis with a 5% significance and an 80% power.2 In fact, the authors only recruited 51 patients but analysed the results as if they had the required number. Their only conclusion was that they did not have enough data to make a conclusion.

 

If we accept the availability of only 51 patients at the outset, what are the relevant calculations? The power calculation is only 43%, and to maintain the power calculation at 80% the P value becomes 34%. The only conclusion is that the trial is not able to prove anything.

 

 

 

 

EDIT - Per your fourth reference:

 

Evaluating Meta-analyses in the General Surgical Literature

 

Results:

Overall concordance between 2 independent reviewers was good (interobserver agreement 81%, and a κ of 0.62 (95% CI 0.55–0.69). Of 51 relevant articles, 38 were published in surgical journals. Most studies had major methodologic flaws (median score of 3.3, scale of 1–7). Factors associated with low overall scientific quality included the absence of any prior meta-analyses publications by authors and meta-analyses produced by surgical department members without external collaboration.

 

 

Conclusions:

This critical appraisal of meta-analyses published in the general surgery literature demonstrates frequent methodologic flaws. The quality of these reports limits the validity of the findings and the inferences that can be made about the primary studies reviewed.

 

 

 

EDIT2 - Per your first reference, it was reviewed, along with others, by Terence Hines:

 

 

homeopathy

A review of the reviews of homeopathic studies has been done by Terence Hines (2003: 360-362). He reviewed Taylor et al. (2000), Wagner (1997), Sampson and London (1995), Kleijen, Knipschild, and ter Riet (1991), and Hill and Doyon (1990). More than 100 studies have failed to come to any definitive positive conclusions about homeopathic potions. Ramey (2000) notes that

 

Homeopathy has been the subject of at least 12 scientific reviews, including meta-analytic studies, published since the mid-1980s....[And] the findings are remarkably consistent:....homeopathic "remedies" are not effective.

 

 

 

ACSH > Health Issues >

 

Furthermore, none of the studies that have generated positive findings has been replicated with such findings, the methodological quality of these studies has been questionable, and the better studies of homeopathy have tended not to generate positive findings.

[Dana Ullman]

That statement about statistics is one person's opinion. IF it were true (!), why would the BMJ publish it, especially since they hate to publish anything positive about homeopathy. Curious minds want to know.

 

And speaking of research, can I assume that you all believe that surgery is unscientific quackery due to the lack of randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials? Hmmmm...how come skeptics tend to ignore this one?

 

And the question about dose-response doesn't understand homeopathy at all, though you can begin to learn a lot about the power of nanodoses and beyond by studying hormesis (there are only a couple thousand studies on this low-dose phenomena...and the doses that THESE scientists investigate are in the extremely small but still material dose range of homeopathic medicines that are sold in health food stores and pharmacies all over the world (3X and 3C to 18X and 9C are very common)...but I bet that most of the people here don't even know this basic stuff.

 

I hope that I'm lighting a fire underneth you to learn something of a rational nature about homeopathy.

[Dana Ullman]

Whooops...I forgot to quote an editorial that was published in the BMJ concurrent with reference #5: "Taylor et al tested this placebo hypothesis in a randomised controlled trial in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Patients in both groups reported similar subjective improvement, but those in the homeoapthic group had singificantly grater improvements in objective measurements of nasal airflow than did the placebo group. The authors believe that when these results are taken together with the findings of THREE similar previous trials, it may be time to confront the conclusion that homeopathy and placebo differ." INDEED, IT IS TIME.

[InfiniteNow]

Wow... You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you. :lol:

 

 

 

Oh yeah... fourth request. Method of action and concentration thresholds.

[Dana Ullman]

Wow...what scholarship!

 

I quote studies and meta-analyses, and you dig deep to respond by calling me a "loser." Hmmmm.

[InfiniteNow]

Wow...what scholarship!

 

I quote studies and meta-analyses, and you dig deep to respond by calling me a "loser." Hmmmm.

 

My references showed methodological errors in your meta-analyses, and also the studies on which they were based.

 

 

Fifth request. Method of action, and concentration thresholds.

 

 

 

Also, I didn't call you a loser. The smilie did. :lol:

[freeztar]

I cannot help but sense that the people here are unfamiliar with the physics of water.

 

Enlighten us...

 

I encourage you to check out the website of professor Martin Chaplin (lsbu.ac.uk/water/chaplin.html).

 

Check. I did some further searching and came across this:

Bad Science Journal Club - “The Memory of Water: an overview”

 

So, I'll focus on this article by Dr. Chaplin and see what becomes of it:

 

 

Proof, lack of proof, or simple disbelief that water has, or can have, a memory has quite unnecessarily been confused with proof over whether homeopathy may or may not be efficacious.

 

It seems that Chaplin is careful to point out that Homeopathy should not be judged on the basis of the "memory of water". He also sets the stage for bias.

 

Editorial comment in the scientific press has subsequently drawn on whether water can indeed show any ‘memory’ of its prior history as direct ‘proof’ of whether homeopathy can be successful or not. Such linkage is quite unnecessary and may easily mislead as the two areas utilize fundamentally differing and entirely independent evidence and should therefore be considered separately.

 

It seems I was wrong.

 

There is no need to judge homeopathy by ascertaining whether water has a memory of past events any more than we should judge conventional medicine by our level of appreciation, or ignorance, of its detailed molecular action. Thus, whether homeopathy works or not is a mostly separate issue from the content of this paper and should be judged solely on the evidence presented copiously elsewhere.

 

Hmmm...

To me, that sounds like "Don't take what I'm saying as a biased position, but I'm biased".

 

This paper concerns the memory of water: to what extent past events may influence the future behaviour of aqueous solutions.

 

This peaks my interest!

 

I read on through the article, until I came upon this:

 

There are several ways water can be shown to have a memory. As a simple example, human taste is quite capable of telling the difference between two glasses of water, processed in different ways (eg one fresh and one left undrunk for several days), where present analytical methods fail. There is a change, of course, but such a change would never be noticed by computer simulations on pure H2O.

 

At this point, I cannot take this author seriously.

 

By the way, the 200th dilution required 200 testtubes of water. Where some of you can say that such dilutions require more water than exists on earth is quite amusing. How authoritative!?

 

Nope. It's going to be pretty hard to debate someone who doesn't even understand the basic principles in homeopathic preparations.

 

Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Boerseun]

Homeopathy is crap. The only possible explanation for any "healing" performed via homeopathy lies splat bang in the placebo effect.

 

If you really, really believe that I can heal you, I can feed you green M&Ms covered in peacock poo, and you will get better. And if you really, really want to believe that I did, in fact, heal you, then this particular phenomenon will strengthen your illusion.

[LJP07]

I should start a book, "The Homeopathy Delusion"...at least for this, I'd have evidence.

 

Dana, just accept that you're on your last legs, you haven't a leg to stand on, your points are not guarantees and have fundamental flaws...

 

How can you possibly believe this rubbish? Water with a Memory? Come on!

 

Answer Freeztars question...tell us in your own words the physics of water that we do not understand because believe me, I know an awful lot about water, and you seem to have some enlightening news for me?

 

Homeopathy is as retarded as Stephen Hawking.