Where's the beef?

re: Where's the beef?

Jim Chatham — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:28:24 GMT

Penicillin and its derivatives have mounds of evidence and have been proven to be an effective treatment against infection.

Your argument for homeopathy by pointing out supposed flaws in a respected field is no argument at all. Where is YOUR evidence?

re: Where's the beef?

Steve Scrutton — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:30:38 GMT

The frequently used stick to beat homeopathy is to state that ‘there is no evidence that homeopathy works’. For the literally millions of people successfully treated by homeopathy (it is a worldwide therapy that has been used for over 200 years now) this is nonsence. But individuals, like myself, who can say ‘homeopathy helped me’ are just dismissed as mere ‘anacdotes’.

Yet there is plenty of scientific evidence that goes far beyond empirism in support of homeopathy. And for anyone who genuinely wants to investigate this evidence they could start by looking at these three sources.

“The Trials of Homeopathy: origins, structures and development”

Michael Emmans Dean 2004

KVC / Verlag, Essen

ISBN 3-933351-40-5.

“The Emerging Science of Homeopathy: complexity, biodynamics and nanopharmacology”

Paolo Bellavite and Andrea Signorini 1995

North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California

ISBN 1-55643-384-0

The Homeopathy Research Institute

http://www.homeopathyresearchinstitute.org/index.htm

I suspect that homeopathy could double, triple and quadruple the amount of science supporting it – but even if it did so overnight many, perhaps most medical scientists would still insist there is ‘no evidence’ to support homeopathy. Too much medical ‘science’ today is bought and paid for by the Big Pharma companies, which is why there is a regular introduction of new ‘wonder’ drugs, tested by science to be effective and safe, which are then withdrawn years later as ineffective and dangerous. Moreover, there is little profit to be made from diluting and succussing substances, especially ordinary everyday substances that cannot be patented!

But the science supporting homeopathy is emerging, although perhaps not as quickly as the growing number of people who can give empirical testimony to its effectiveness.

re: Where's the beef?

tina miles — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:35:54 GMT

i think that homepathic medincine is right for some people especley when precribed by an experienced practiioner , i have had chronic sinunitus treated with kali bic they were hard my face swollen and the pain in 5 days it was all but gone i was on stage under hot lights singing with a amertrue show group, no other medication was used so thats proof enough for me.

under the same practioner i was treated with single source honey and thyme for the early stage of bronchitus i was again up and about with in the week.

unfortunatly this practioner has moved on and i cant find anyone as good as a replacment, i have had fibromialgia for the past 8 yrs , i have used know over the counter or perscription medincine i am not cured but i am not any worse and i have my symptons under control with weleda products and other suplements i live in hope that one day i will wake up and it will be gone, i am always being told by other suffers to get this and that from the doctors but i just cant see the sence in putting my imune system under any more stress . regards tina

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:53:31 GMT

Once again an argument in favour of homeopathy that amounts to nothing more than a philosophical criticism of empiracism.

This is not evidence for homeopathy, it is simply a view put forward against modern evidence based approaches. While every effort should be made to refine and improve all brances of medicine, it is telling that supporters of homeopathy rely on this to deflect from their inability to provide convincing evidence that any of the claims are real.

Until they do, homeopathy with remain an untested hypothesis. One which required assumptions to be made which are also untested hypotheses.

Step up to the challenge and provide water tight evidence that these hypotheses are real and move away from the age of simply critising others. Then and only then will homeopathy be worthy of any credibility. Until then it is a waste of public money to invest in any untested hypothesis, homeopathy or otherwise.

re: Where's the beef?

graham — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:54:12 GMT

Montague Healthcare has had two 'rapid responses' published in the BMJ this year. One article includes reference to the Russian company MATERIA MEDICA which has developed technology to isolate and manufacture homeopathic antibodies. These are used in pharmaceutical products sold on the Russian market.

Moreover this class of polyclonal antibody are now the subject of research by GSK and other pharmaceutical companies.

Perhaps the debate has moved on...............

re: Where's the beef?

Sarah D — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:02:15 GMT

My homeopath is also a trained Medical Doctor and left practice when his own son was let down by medical profession. He treated my son for Streptococcus when the doctors were unsure and dithering. I carried him in and within a few days was back on his feet. Sadly someone else in his school was less fortunate at the hospital. This is not evidence yet how can it be ignored? To my knowledge, science cannot prove basic emotions and many scientists will simply not want to be seen sticking their necks out. Medical profession needs to sort its own house out before knocking others. They know the science of cleanliness and MRSA but it changes nothing.

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:03:42 GMT

"Science cannot prove basic emotions"

..and nor does it attempt to! But we are not talking about basic emotions, the colour red or whether I prefer marmalade to jam. All completely irrelevant to this topic.

What scientific methods can very easily test however, is whether or not placebo effects account for homeopathy.

You wouldn't want a doctor telling you "take this. Hey, I can't prove that it works. But I feel in my heart that it can. My emotions are very powerful. Science can't "prove" my emotions, so might as well ignore science!"

The medical profession would do well to sort out its own house but once again, this is in no way evidence that homeopathy works! for that you need evidence that homeopathy works, not that people don't like GPs, or that they want homeopathy to work, or that they prefer it, or that they will use it even without evidence. None of these consititute evidence.

Why does it remain SO elusive?

re: Where's the beef?

Arthur Bailey — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:10:44 GMT

There have been numerous double-blind tests that have showed that homoeopathy works far better than placebo. There was a case on television where a farmer gave his cows homoeopathic medicine to prevent mastitis. It was very effective and saved the farmer much money in vet's bills alone over a year. But I was forgetting - the cows had obviously been told what was happening so it was all placebo effect!

As a scientist I must insist that we stop putting the cart before the horse. If experminets under double-blind conditions show that homoeopathy is better than placebo (as they have done) then that is prima facie evidence that homoeopathy works. The fact that there is no adequate explanation, in terms of current scientific theories, does not invalidate the results. It merely means that at present there is no adequate explanation. So called scientists must stop worshipping theories. It is what happens in experiments that matters.

re: Where's the beef?

Arthur Bailey — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:11:32 GMT

As a scientist I must insist that we stop putting the cart before the horse. If experiments under double-blind conditions show that homoeopathy is better than placebo (as they have done) then that is prima facie evidence that homoeopathy works. The fact that there is no adequate explanation, in terms of current scientific theories, does not invalidate the results. It merely means that at present there is no adequate explanation. So called scientists must stop worshipping theories. It is what happens in experiments that matters.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:14:24 GMT

Err are you seriously trying to render causality obsolete because of Heisenberg's principle?!? If you want to talk Quantum Mechanics then please use it correctly. While it provides the fundamentals for Nature's operation at the subatomic level, decoherence in the macroscopic world ensures that causality in the broader sense remains and that's why Newtonian laws are used! But even in the subatomic level, where the Uncertainty principle dominates, Schrodinger's wavefunctions give us amazing probabilistic measures for numbers of particles. So, please, do not misuse scientific theories to somehow add credibility to your claims!

Second, "orthodox" medicine (as you call it) has measurable effects on molecular level! Homeopathic remedies do *not* have such an effect! And this is where terms like "holistic" or "life force" come into play.

Third, there are a number of extremely strong theories behind "orthodox" medicine, for instance the Germ Theory, and this is how it arrives at the cause of some diseases and the development of related medicine. No one says that these are perfect -although most of the time it does a pretty damn good job! But even if it is not perfect, this doesn't give any more credibility to your claims!

Finally, to those that keep mentioning the positive randomized controlled double blind trials for homeopathy, this is a small amount amongst even more trials that show no effect better than placebo. And this is exactly what someone should expect if it *is* placebo! And lets not forget the prior probabilities that is much smaller in the case of homeopathy which would render much of the results meaningless! Further, exactly because of the implausibility on scientific grounds of homeopathy, you need stronger evidence than that! So, please do not use this small amount of positive studies as "evidence" for such claims.

As a last note, the postulates that Hahnemann derived were merely ideas he had without testing them scientifically and without reaching there through observation. All he did was test one ailment on himself and then he derived the "like cures like" idea! Then out of the blue he said that "more diluted = stronger"! How did he reach such conclusions that go against scientific facts? And the fact that for 200 years NOTHING has changed in homeopathy sounds to me like blind faith. What do you think?

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:20:54 GMT

Arthur:

do you understand what placebo is and how it works?!? Do you think that someone needs to be told something? If someone feels that he is being treated then he/she/it is susceptible to the placebo effect. Besides, who reports if the cow is better or not? Isn't there observational bias? And what about regression to the mean?

And if you are a scientist as you say, you should know that "extraodinary claims require extraodinary evidence" and a small number of positive trials amongst much more negative ones is not even evidence to start with! And you should also know what science is all about: it is the exact opposite of dogma! No one worships theories! Theories are *constantly* put to the test, and the moment they fail to pass a test they will be reconsidered and modified. But you already know these things since you are a scientist right?

re: Where's the beef?

Millsider — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:47:36 GMT

All I wish to say that I was very sceptical of homeopathy and tried it not relly thinking that it would work. I have had it proved to me the few times that I have seen my homeopath over the past 5 years. Not only to myself, but on one occasion my husband came with and saw immediately on my face that all my pain had just disappeared. He has since then also used him to great effect for hayfever. I have seen him for anxiety, Menopausal symptoms and orthodontal probs. On most occasions it has worked within minutes, sometimes within a few days. Of course you must have a well practised GOOD homeopath.

re: Where's the beef?

Linda — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:50:08 GMT

Why not ask the patients? People are not daft they don't carry on taking a treatment if it doesn't work or gives side effects. They would give up on homeopathy if it didn't work, but they still keep on coming! In fact they have often 'given up' on orthodox medicine because it hasn't helped them and turned to homeopathy. They are hard taskmasters and will remain critical (or appreciative) of what has or hasn't worked.

re: Where's the beef?

Jim Chatham — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:41:48 GMT

Homeopathic remedies are nothing but water or alcohol or sugar tablets. They rely on the pseudoscience that the water molecule "remembers" the substance that it had been exposed to. A 30C homeopathic remedy is akin to dissolving 1 mg of the curative substance in a tank of water 14 LIGHT YEARS in radius.

Just because you take a homeopathic remedy and the clouds part doesn't mean that the remedy caused the sun to shine on your face. The placebo effect and coincidence are all that's necessary to explain what people think about homeopathy. Actual double blind trials show no statistical effect on the curative powers of homeopathy.

And rather than read material produced by homeopaths, or homeopathic websites, how about check out the non-biased information provided by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/ .

re: Where's the beef?

Belinda — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:45:20 GMT

Studing homoeopathy in college has brought me in front of some extrodinary indivuduals (practicing homoepaths), one of which has been in clinical practice for over 20 years here in Australia. To all of you detractors - so what you're saying is that the literally 1000's of patients he has seen and had success with over this time were obviously experiencing a placebo effect?... I myself have taken homoepathic medicine with astounding results. CURED, yes that's right CURED of a condition not able to be touched by the plethora of drugs and surgery offered by orthodox medicine. I have also witnessed homoeopathic treatment of animals where the placebo effect does not apply. Explain that! Feel free to believe the fanciful claims by the pharmaceutical companies about the newest miracle drug for this or that and 10 to 15 years from now find out how much damage it has done to the people it was supposed to be helping. HRT therapy, Heart medication just to name two. Tell me when was the last time you heard of someone dying from homoepathic treatment?

re: Where's the beef?

Dana Ullman — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:04:10 GMT

I'm tired of reading uninformed and ill-informed people say that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathic medicines work. Various meta-analyses published in leading medical journals that have reviewed the broad field of homeopathy have found that the placebo response is an inadequate explanation for the positive responses that controlled trials have found (1)(2), and several meta-analyses evaluating the homeopathic treatment of specific diseases has also found positive results.(3)(4)(5)(6)

References:

(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”, and "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definite conclusions".

(2) Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al (1997). "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials". Lancet 350 (9081): 834–43. PMID 9310601. Linde and colleagues analysed 89 trials and found a mean odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 2.05–2.93), in favor of homeopathy. When considering just those trials of “high quality” and after correcting for publication bias, the findings actually remained statistically significant. The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.” The authors later analyzed these trials and concluded that higher quality trials were less likely to be positive than those of lower quality, though the difference from placebo remained statistically significant. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633.

(6) 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.

There are many other trials that I could reference, some of which are at my website (www.homeopathic.com) and some are in the books that I write.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:54:43 GMT

Dana Ulman:

but even you cannot deny that trials are the *only* means of studying homeopathic remedies as they have no effect on molecular level whatsoever. There is no supporting science behind this. In fact it goes against accepted science! And this makes it an extraordinary claim. And you know what this means.

Further, please see my previous comment: there *are* indeed positive results but are lost within a larger number of negative results. Plus, due to the nature of the claim and its prior probability, relying in dubious statistical results as strong evidence just doesn't work in the case of homeopathy. Finally, you have to consider the publication bias: while scientists typically will publish even negative results in order to help proceed further in a field, in homeopathy no proponent would *ever* publish a negative result!

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:24:07 GMT

Dana Ullman (sorry for the previous misspell):

(1) "...if only the mechanism of action were more plausible..." and "...not sufficient..."

(2) Linde has had his methodology extensively criticized since publication and even in his results it shows that in 6 out of 10 cases homeopathy is no better than placebo! Even Linde conceided problems in his review in 1998 and revised some of his results!

(3) the homeopathically treated children were "healed" in 3.3 days while the placebo children in 4.1 days. Keep in mind that the measurements were taken in relatively large intervals (because of the problem at hand: diarhoea) and the parents or health workers were reporting the results. Further, Jacobs himslef performed the same study in 2006 and found homeopathy to be no better than placebo!

Jacobs J, Guthrie BL, Montes GA, Jacobs LE, Mickey-Colman N, Wilson AR, et al. Homeopathic combination remedy in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea in Honduras. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2006, 12(8):723-32

But it was convenient for you not to mention it right?

(4) Are you kidding me?!? Have you read the results and the authors conclusions?!? Results: "...There was no evidence that homoeopathic treatment can prevent influenza-like syndrome...". Author's conclusions: "...Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes..."!!!

(5) From the conclusions: significance was found only in dillutions less than 12C while more than 12C were no better than placebo! I am sorry but this is in contrast with the homeopathic postulate isn't it? Further: "...However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled trial to resolve the issue..."

(6) This is the only study that seems to actually favor homeopathy. And even here it mentions that: "...On average no significant difference between the groups was seen on visual analogue scale scores..." and that the results were reported by the patients!

Dana IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN GET?!?

re: Where's the beef?

Purushottama — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:45:09 GMT

If some one says Homoeopathy does not work then I dismiss that as case of selective blindness. If you dont want to see the truth then ask for evidence. When evidence is placed then raise a dispute that the evidence is not in the way you want it. When the same is presented in the way one wants it then continue to say it is not evidence and so on. This is sheer madness of the critics advocating a sort of Thereaupatical Fundamentalism. They seem to belive that those medicnes manufactured by the pharma companies sponsoring them only is the real medicine and all other system are useless. There is no point in proving to the cynics and selectively blind that Homoeopathy really works. It is excellent and fantastic. This I, one time critic of Homoeopathy, can vouch for.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:59:15 GMT

Purushottama:

unfortunately for you, yes, it is (almsot) exactly as you say it! We are talking about people's health! So the most rigorous and strict examinations and experiments must take place before recommending something as medicine! Isn't that obvious? All proper medicine goes through rigorous tests, trials, scientific experiments, etc before being approved and regulated as acceptable medicine. And there have been many cases where such medicine was retracted due to some unexpected side-effect or some other problem. Well do you see the pattern here? No one ever says that proper medicine is perfect. And science is always falsifiable and put to the test all the time. The problem with homeopathy is it is NOT falsifiable! And it is based on blind faith! For 200 years it hasn't changed a bit despite the huge advances in science! This reminds me of religion. So if there is a dogma on one of the sides we see in which side this is, right?

You are yet again talking about a conspiracy of the Big Pharma and the Big Science. Well guess what? We are utterly bored with that stupid and baseless argument! Find a new one more convincing. The Big Pharma can easily exploit and market homeopathic remedies and have huge profits because of the non-existent research or regulation requirements and the very cheap raw material. So this is a completely baseless argument. Please do not use it again. It is ridiculous.

re: Where's the beef?

Jim Chatham — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:51:56 GMT

If there is any conspiracy, it is on the part of homeopaths preying on the gullibility of people. Furthermore, I find it absolutely silly that the National Institutes of Health has a separate branch devoted to researching Alternative Medicines. But here we are - and Ullman would have us ignore it completely and defer, rather, to his cherry picked list of confirmations. Indeed, we are gullible if we expect "one of America's leading advocates for Homeopathy" to provide objective references. Stavros wrote a rebuttal to these references and I would add

(6) For a refutation, see Miller B (2001). Letters: Homeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis. British Medical Journal, 322:169

Addtionally, there is an overwhelming body of work showing homeopathy is no better than placebo. To wit,

1) "It is concluded that the trial data available to date do not suggest that homeopathy is effective in the prophylaxis of migraine or headache beyond a placebo effect." J Pain Symptom Manage 1999 Nov;18(5):353-7 Homeopathic prophylaxis of headaches and migraine? A systematic review. Ernst E

2) "The review of studies carried out according to current scientific criteria revealed--at best--a placebo effect of homeopathy. Until now there is no proven mechanism for the mode of action of homeopathy. Sometimes so-called "alternative medicine" prevents effective curative measures." Padiatr Padol 1992;27(2):37-41 [Clinical medicine versus homeopathy]. [Article in German] Kurz R

3) "We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results." J Clin Epidemiol 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6 Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB

4) "Up to now, no research has categorically proven that homoeopathy has a specific pharmacological action, consequently it is not a proven scientific therapy." Rev Med Suisse Romande 2000 Feb;120(2):171-7 [Is homeopathy a scientific therapy]? [Article in French] Mudry A

5) "The homeopathic treatment was no more effective than the placebo treatment of plantar warts." CMAJ 1992 May 15;146(10):1749-53 Homeopathic treatment of plantar warts. Labrecque M, Audet D, Latulippe LG, Drouin J.

6) "Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic treatment." Cephalalgia 1997 Aug;17(5):600-4 Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine. Whitmarsh TE ; Coleston-Shields DM ; Steiner TJ Princess Margaret Migraine Clinic, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.

That no one had died from homeopathic remedies is an old canard. The active ingredient has been diluted to such a degree as to be ineffective. At best, homeopathic remedies are likely psychosomatic in nature. To me, they are no different than potions borne of witchcraft.

re: Where's the beef?

SpiderWoman — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:44:27 GMT

stavros, you have clearly indicated your bias. The fact that you ignore the obvious fact that there is clear evidence of drug trials being biased based on who pays for them clarifies what you're doing. You don't like the idea of pharmaceutical companies being criticized for hiding negative results? Explain how Vioxx was allowed to kill at least 60,000 people, when the company had the information about its dangers. Explain how Prozac was approved by the FDA using only a subset of the original data documenting it wasn't effective, but hand-selected a small number (not much over 100 people) to gain approval.

Jim Chatham, you say it's a lie (that is the definition of canard) that no one has died from homeopathy. Then, you go on to say that it can have no effect because it's too dilute. So, you make a statement without anything to back it up - then you go on to make another statement that, if it were true, would prove your first statement is wrong. After all, how could something that, according to you, can have no effect going to kill?

I'm alive because of homeopathy. The disease was iatrogenic and horrific, arachnoiditis, causing permanent inflammation in the central nervous system and clumping of the cauda equina nerve roots from scar tissue growing inside the thecal sac. There is no treatment - absolutely none, other than for pain - by the allopathic medical system. It is considered incurable and utterly hopeless. Homeopathy reversed the disease - no more inflammation, no more pain, and most of the debilitation gone. I have the MRI proof of the disease. Since it is always supposed to be progressive and incurable, and I accepted homeopathic treatment only to satisfy another person that everything possible had been tried - having no belief in it myself - there is no satisfactory explanation for my healing other than that homeopathy works.

This turned my own bullheadedness around - and I feel quite foolish now for having been so gullible as to accept the standard medical paradigm without question. Honest thinking requires accepting new information that conflicts with one's beliefs and changing those beliefs, not arbitrarily rejecting the new information

Call it a placebo effect if you wish, but frankly, the views of those who support the pharmaceutical corporations or use the sort of argument that is self-conflicting, are not worthy of consideration. If you want to trust in a medical system in which profits are the controlling factor, then go ahead. One thing is quite clear - the real risks are in allopathic medicine, not homeopathy.

re: Where's the beef?

SpiderWoman — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:56:32 GMT

"The Big Pharma can easily exploit and market homeopathic remedies and have huge profits because of the non-existent research or regulation requirements and the very cheap raw material. So this is a completely baseless argument. Please do not use it again. It is ridiculous."

What's nonsense is this statement. Big Pharma cannot make the kinds of profits on homeopathy that they do on their drugs, and for a variety of reasons. First, the profit margin in drugs is stunning - sometimes over 500,000% - yes, that's five hundred thousand percent. The biggest part of their budgets is in marketing, by far. Research money is far less. Then, there are the rigid controls over the manufacture of homeopathic remedies, controls that do not exist in pharmaceutical companies. Or aren't you aware of the current scam about Bayer AG having to recall most of its Fentanyl patches because no one ever bothered to check whether one of their suppliers, a Chinese manufacturer, was producing safe products - and they were not. As a result, people have been dying from that particular drug.

Homeopathic remedy manufacturers adhere to very rigid and strict methods and procedures in their production process. If there is even the slightest hint of a problem anywhere in the process, an entire batch is simply eliminated. Obviously, pharmaceutical firms don't do anything nearly as rigorous, and clearly have no interest in doing so. Otherwise, Bayer AG would have known about their supplier's flawed product. And no homeopathic remedy maker even dreams of a profit like 500,000%.

No, I really don't think that Big Pharma can compete in the homeopathy marketplace.

re: Where's the beef?

Jim Chatham — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:20:54 GMT

Yes, "canard" was a poor choice. But I hope you take my point.

re: Where's the beef?

SpiderWoman — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:43:26 GMT

Nothing wrong with the word canard - but your logic is self-conflicting, doing a rather good job of demolishing the point you were trying to make. And I didn't even have to get to the end of your statement, comparing homeopathic treatment to witchcraft. So, for the rest of your statement:

First, you obviously know nothing of the history of witchcraft, the use of effective herbal remedies, or the connection between the torture and murder of massive numbers of women as witches. There were two reasons for this practice: one to firmly place women in an underclass by the dominant religion of the time and the other to silence their knowledge, and thus their competition, for the newly-emerging "modern" medicine, which obviously had to attack alternatives viciously to be able to compete. Thus, massive amounts of knowledge passed from woman to woman were destroyed, forcing people to accept and not to question the ministrations of doctors. It seems that not much has changed, except that the alternative practitioners now include many men.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:43:56 GMT

SpiderWoman:

errr, this isn't about whether proper medicine works although I did make that point so show how long and rigorous processes are involved there. And the fact is that all of them are based on long scientific research and then subsequent manufacturing. And I have *clearly* stated that I do not say that proper medicine is perfect or that it doesn't need changes. Read my comment thoroughly before making invalid assertions about me being negative on criticism of big pharmas -I was first to criticize. So please no other "straw man" arguments.

But you are missing the point: this is about whether homeopathic remedies work. And they don't.

And my statement about big pharmas exploiting homeopathic remedies remains perfectly valid despite you being unable to comprehend it: your first argument against it is completely irrelevant! The fact that currently big pharmas make lots of money on proper drugs does not in any case mean that they cannot make money on homeopathic remedies as well! Your second argument is baseless: as I have mentioned all proper medicine is based on rigorous previous research, and there are costs for getting approval, testing and regulating. What are the costs for homeopathic preparations? The water? The sugar pills? The alcohol?!? In London they sell a 25ml homeopathic solution for more than £4! And what are the costs of preparation? The shaking?? Where is the expertise required? And what about the consultation costs? They can charge more than £50 per hour and they don't even do a proper diagnosis! They do not use modern machinery (x-rays, MRI etc) they are only based on the symptoms the patient tells them! So what costs are you talking about? And once again Bayer's errors are not evidence in favor of homeopathy for crying out loud! Stop using such irrelevant arguments! Provide arguments that show that homeopathy works! Can you? No, because as already mentioned numerous times, it doesn't work.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:48:03 GMT

Regarding homeopaty never having killed anyone allow me to say that you are terribly wrong -whoever subscribes to this opinion, that is.

It may have not killed someone directly -how could it! but it has killed lots of indirectly because of delayed proper treatment, misinformation from homeopaths (e.g. on vaccination) and simply the stubborness of delussioned people that play with their lives. The "whats the harm?" website (http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html) has only a small list of the large number of related cases. And I have relatives that were subjected to homeopathy and almost died from pneumonia.

re: Where's the beef?

Belinda — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:24:00 GMT

Stavros:

You say that due to the use of homoeopathy for pneumonia relative of your's almonst died. You also point to it killing indirectly due to delay in "proper" treatment (e.g. vaccination), prove it Stavros that these individuals would not have died anyway. You say that on the basis of your personal experience homoeopathy does not work. Well my best friends child is now autistic right after recieving the MMR vaccine and on top of that the child has had measles 2 years following this vaccination. So therefore if I apply your standards allopathic vaccination does not work either! How ridiculous is this statement to you? Regardless of the form any treatment takes there in life is never any 100% guarantee. Homoeopathy works for 1000's and if you understood the nature of this form of treatment you would understand that clinical trials are impossible. Not because it doesn't work but each and every case needs to be considered on individual signs and symptoms. You can not lump people into the same category with homoeopathy. I don't care what uneducated, closed minded fools say about this form of treatment, it works. I know it and those that use it know it. Have a good day :)

re: Where's the beef?

SpiderWoman — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:58:19 GMT

Regarding the statement, "And I have relatives that were subjected to homeopathy and almost died from pneumonia."

You seem to think that your particular anecdotal evidence is of value, while discounting that of those who favor homeopathists. So which do you want - to have your cake or eat it?

Before speaking about vaccinations, it might be a good idea to know something of what you're talking about. Try comparing the AMA's own report on deaths from infectious diseases (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/61#FIGJOC80862F1) with the dates for when the common childhood vaccinations were introduced. If you see that graphed out over most of the 20th century - in their own graphs on their own article - it becomes quite clear that vaccinations for childhood diseases are not beneficial. This is one of those sacred cows of allopathic medicine that are routinely trotted out as proof of its health paradigm, yet it's done so without any questioning of whether that particular sacred cow really exists. In the case of vaccinations for childhood disease, it does not.

The claim that it's homeopaths offering misinformation is based on a statement that can easily be documented as false.

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:59:03 GMT

Spiderwoman,

Your point that pharmaceutical products are unregulated is far from true. The pharmaceutical indiustry is one of, if not the most regulated industry there is. And with good reason- problems with production can lead to fatal consequences, so srict rules are in place to enure that the manufacture of drugs ahderes to strict rules.

Pharmaceuticals are regulated by UK and european law. Firstly, they cannot be licensed for sale (first step- the need a license) without clear evidence of effiacy and safety. Secondly, their manufacturing processes must be approved with every batch of drugs traceable so that if a problem does emerge, every single vial of drug can be immediately recalled. This is exactly what happened with the fentanyl patch, which was found to be leaking. The very fact that every batch of these patches that has a problem could be idenitified and recalled demonstrates that regulations exist and can be enacted, a very diffeent scenario from no regulation at all as you suggest.

However, none of these issues are relevant to the main debate which is "does homepathy work any better than placebo"?

Homeopathy is not classed as a medicine in law so does not have to adhere to the same standards of safety, product monitoring or indeed efficacy. Anyone can manufacture and sell homeopathy products. The do not contain active ingredients, so the risks involved are obvious less that pharmaceutically active products which have an effect on the body, homeopathy does not.

That's not to say that people don't derive some benefit from being given and using homeopathy. Its clear that a great many people swear by it. One of the most productive and pragmatic approaches to medicine is to understand the underlying mechanism behind how a treatment works, with the aim of improving it, developing it further and maximising its effects. Homeopaths sadly don't do this, prefering to ridgidly deny that their methods might work by means alternatiuve to how they beleive they may work.

There are two hypotheses as to how they could work. One is that they might be very elaborate placebo effects. This has been tested and so far the evidence supports this, but lets suppose its still unsure. There is another hypothesis which is that the principle of like treats like really is true.

If that's the case, then we have to rethink pretty mcuh everything we know about pharmacology and stochastic chemistry. This is something very difficult to do without very, very robust evidence becausse both these theories have literally a mountain of incredibly robust evidence to support them, vs the very weak of non existent evidence that homeopathy can be distinguished from placebo.

A pragamtic mind would want to know the truth. It would reamin open minded to all possibilities. it would want to get to the answers, not set out to prove what it wanted to beleive.

There is no problem at all in science with accepting phenomena for which the explanation is till unknown- this happens allthe time in real science. But you still have to look at all the possibilites and all the evidence. So far the evidence points towards placebo effects. I for one would have the utmost respect for a homeopathy who accepted that they probably know more about placebo effects than anyone else and wa willing to examine these pohenomena more and contrbute to patient care and wellbeing that way (which clerly they have a very important role) rather than create elaborate psuedoscientific schemes which conflist with pretty much 300 years of self corroborating, highly watertight evidence (which came not from drug companies but scientists over the centuries).

That's why homeopaths are criticised. Not as support for any other method of treatment, but simply because in the 21st century they explain their observatins irrationally. They do not have to, they could apply rational thinking just like everyone else. But they don't and that is why they get a hard time and are likened to withcraft, alchemy, etc, astrology, etc. remember, ,millions of people beleive in astrology to this day, that doesn't mean that planets can affect the events in our lives.

Lets hear from the homeopaths who understand that their methods need some explaining and are open minded enough to expolre these ideas with a rational mind. Anyone?

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:23:40 GMT

Belinda:

Please try reading someone's comments before making invalid assertions: I *never* said that homeopathy doesn't work on the basis of my experience!!! Never! I said it doesn't work on the basis of lots of scientific evidence and the scientific implausibility of the supposed mechanics involved!

Second, there treatable cases of cancer at very early stages where the patient refused simple surgery or chemotherapy for homeopathy. When they returned to the doctor after failure with homeopathy, their cancer wasn't curable anymore.

"if you understood the nature of this form of treatment you would understand that clinical trials are impossible": please enlighten me as to the nature of the treatment. And then please derive suitable tests to test homeopathic remedies. 200 years is a lot of time not to have done it right?

" I don't care what uneducated, closed minded fools say about this form of treatment, it works."L those uneducated closed minded fools are the scientific community. And how do you define close mindedness? I simply do not accept whatever stupid claim everyone believes. I require evidence or at least some degree of plausibility. Homeopathy fails at both. Where do you draw the line Belinda? Do you believe anything they tell you? How do you decide what to believe and what not? And thankfully science doesn't work with scientists saying "I know it works so it is correct". Scientists know that they can never rely on their personal experiences and that is why the scientific method was developed.

Finally, it has been proven a million times in lots of scientific publications that MMR has absolutely nothing to do with autism. Listen to this: not only it doesn't cause autism, but a latest research showed there is not even *correlation* with development of autism!!! Please do your homework before posting something untrue.

Have a good day too.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:30:54 GMT

SpiderWoman:

Ha ha how predictable you people are becoming! The same over and over again! I was expecting this comment! I merely mentioned my case at the very end of my comment not as an argument of course (I have plenty of other arguments which you bypassed) but to state that I myself have seen what homeopathy is and I have personally tried it twice in the past!

Also, homeopathy is based *only* on misinformation! Their entire campaign is a misinformation on science, attacks on proper medicine, attacks on doctors and scientists personally etc!

And once again there is a straw man argument: I said misinformation on vaccinations which is absolutely true: the continuous attacks on the MMR and some other vaccines have brought back diseases that should never come back again thanks to vaccinations! See what happened in north England where there was an outbreak of measles due to people not taking their vaccinations because of the false link with autism! So regardless of whether something has been wrong with vaccines before (and it will be wrong again I am sure) my argument remains valid.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:33:24 GMT

Harradine:

very, *very* well said. I could not agree more.

re: Where's the beef?

SpiderWoman — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:37 GMT

Interesting to see the discussion devolve into ad hominem attack: "How predictable you people are becoming! The same over and over again!" Whenever I see this happen, it's a good indication that the person doing it has no good arguments to make.

I have looked into a major years' long study of thimerosal and autism, and it is full of flaws, clearly designed to demonstrate what it set out to show. That study eliminated every child who developed autism! Yes, that is specifically stated. It says that there will be another study to address autism. It also eliminated every baby who was born at less than 5.5 pounds, yet those babies are vaccinated. That study is not valid.

Before you cite these studies, it might be a good idea to check them out to make sure that they actually prove what they claim.

I never said that pharmaceutical products are unregulated. Don't put words in my mouth and try to argue against them. That's a straw dog method of argument, and valid only if you're trying to impress people who don't understand how illegitimate it is. The problem is that the regulation is not adequate, and the studies are far from adequate. There's regulation, but that regulation is increasingly being done by people who are beholden to the pharmaceutical companies or, when they leave the FDA, go to work for them. Until that link is broken, then the FDA's scrutiny of pharmaceutical firms and their studies must be suspect. In fact, most of the funding for the FDA comes from the companies they're supposed to regulate.

Further, how valid can a study be when it's paid for or performed by the very company that hopes to make profits from the product being studied? That's the system in use - and it's obvious that such a system may have well have been designed to produce dangerous products.

I am a homeopath and have no problem saying that the underlying mechanism is not known. That many homeopaths believe they know is not really the issue here. It's whether one's experience shows that it does or does not work. My own clearly shows its efficacy. But, the fact is that the application of homeopathy does not function in a manner that is readily studied by double-blind studies. Its nature is completely otherwise. Why should homeopathy be forced to be judged by a paradigm within which it doesn't fit?

You say that a pragmatic mind wants to know the truth and that you're open to all possibilities. Then, where is your interest in the JAMA article that, when correlated against the introduction of vaccinations, shows that there is no benefit in terms of death rates. Your paradigm takes it on faith that vaccinations are good and effective, but it seems to me - someone who once took the same view - that believing that is simply blind faith. Even if it were true (and there are studies showing otherwise) that unvaccinated children are more likely to get measles, what makes you believe that's a good thing? The allopathic paradigm seems to think that all illness is bad, but homeopathy does not agree. It sees the symptoms of illness as the body's attempts to heal itself.

Frankly, the allopathic system is beginning to see some of what homeopathy has recognized for 200 years. Finally, the fact that lowering fevers, except when the fever itself is so high it's dangerous, is the wrong thing to do, because that's one of the body's first systems of defense. Allopaths are now finally acknowledging that giving children cold medications to dry up secretions and stop coughs is counterproductive. Any homeopathy could have told them that, if they'd been willing to listen.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:45:51 GMT

SpiderWoman:

Please read the posts thoroughly, we cannot make discussions otherwise.

"Whenever I see this happen, it's a good indication that the person doing it has no good arguments to make."

Is it an indication in thisa case as well? You seem to have bypassed ALL of mine and Harradine's arguments -and there are so many!

"Before you cite these studies, it might be a good idea to check them out to make sure that they actually prove what they claim".

There are literally dozens of studies on this subjects all of them conclusive.

I never did that, I think it was Harradine. However, you certainly seem to imply something similar: "Obviously, pharmaceutical firms don't do anything nearly as rigorous, and clearly have no interest in doing so".

"It's whether one's experience shows that it does or does not work. My own clearly shows its efficacy."

No, you are totally wrong here as I mentioned in my previous post. Personal experiences are not evidence. That is why the scientific method was devised. If you want to use homeopathy that is fine by me. Good luck. But do not make claims (not you specifically, the homeopath "doctors" mainly) and try to pursuade or misinform other people into it. This is criminal.

"But, the fact is that the application of homeopathy does not function in a manner that is readily studied by double-blind studies. Its nature is completely otherwise. Why should homeopathy be forced to be judged by a paradigm within which it doesn't fit?".

Please come up with a different objective way to test it. As I said, 200 years is a lot of time.

"Your paradigm takes it on faith that vaccinations are good and effective, but it seems to me - someone who once took the same view - that believing that is simply blind faith. Even if it were true (and there are studies showing otherwise) that unvaccinated children are more likely to get measles, what makes you believe that's a good thing?"

For a thousandth time please read thoroughly and please point to me exactly where I show blind faith on vaccinations and where I mention that vaccinations are good and effective. My argument was about misinformation about vaccinations because of ignoring numerous scientific studies that show their efficacy on eliminating certain diseases, and the outbreak in Northern England. It is not my opinion. It is the evidence. And for a millionth time, this is irrelevant to whether homeopathy works or not!

"The allopathic paradigm seems to think that all illness is bad, but homeopathy does not agree."

So you are saying that some illness is good? Please provide some examples and explain your statement.

"It sees the symptoms of illness as the body's attempts to heal itself." And in what way is this different from the "allopathic" way of thinking (this is not a rhetoric question)? And how does that relate to whether homeopathy works or not?

re: Where's the beef?

Janet — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:25:28 GMT

As a long time Homoeopathic remedy user i have had amazing results.

I dont need any surveys or trials etc to tell me it doesnt work because i know otherwise

I am into self help and looking after my children and family and keeping immune systems healthy. None of my 5 children have had any vaccinations/immunisations. Although we are generally very healthy occassionally one of the family does 'go down' with something. Last week i myself had a gut problem namely colic/knotted feeling around belly button which is usually easy to sort out but this time procedures didnt work and the whole thing got worse then after a wk i remembered that this was similar to a complaint one of my children had had when a baby, the remedy that cured baby was Colocynthis - the remedy worked almost immediately - like a miracle so i thought i would give it a try myself and took 2 doses of 6's in the morning and guess what? by the afternoon all inside much better and next day back to normal. I was very happy that the rem worked cos i was getting very miserable with the pain etc.

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:28:32 GMT

Spiderwoman, I would neverf dream of putting words in your mouth.

Your exact words were:"Then, there are the rigid controls over the manufacture of homeopathic remedies, controls that do not exist in pharmaceutical companies."

And I pointed out that these control do exist. if they did not, then the fentanyl patches would not have been identifed or recalled. recalling a product batch is an example of a control.

Similar controls exist over manufacturing. So I am not putting words in your mouth, just correcting a point you made that was wrong.

No straw man (or dog).

Double blind testing is simply a paradigm of logic and empiricism. if homepathay exsts outside logic and empiricism, then you will have to accept the criticsim that this inevitably brings. What you are saying is that homepathy can't properly be tested. ergo, no one can demonstrate whether it works or not. Ergo you cannot know whether its effects are real or placebo.

if it really is the case that homepathy can never be tested, then you have only faith to go by rather than evidence, which is where much of the criticism of the art comes from

As it happens the claims of homepathy are easily tested, its simply false to say that they can't be. They make specific claims and these can be tested using a multitude of means. The fact that treatments are individualised does not affect their ability to be tested, or nature of the ailments of any other reason. The claims are well within the relams of falsifyability and have been falisifed (not that they work, just the claim that they have effects independant of placebo- I have no dounbt that they "work" if by "work" you mean people take them and get better shortly after and swear by the treatment. They clearly do. But if by "work" you mean has an effect that can be disntibguished from placebo, then they don't work because their actions are identical to what you would see if they really were just expertly administered water.

Lets have a look at the effiacy of vaccination in more detail if you like. Its a very interesting topic and there's a wealth of information to get through if you really are interested. But I think its important to make the point that I would never use any critcism of homeopathy as evidence that vaccination works. Any evidence for that has to come independantly, it works or it doesn't.

it would be like me arguing that because cold remedies probably don't work, then this means that all other forms of medicine MUST. Or that is one treatment method fails, all others must work. That's clearly a non sequeter.

And one that homeopaths appear to use often. Rather than honestly discuss their views on homeopathy with clarity and reason, it takes no time at all for them to revert to "allopathy does this or that or the other" as if this supports what they do.

it can't, the two systems are independant, it just shows the problem at the heart of homoepathy

Spiderwoman, you are a homeopath, which is very interesting indeed. I agree, there is no need to have a fully understood mechanism before accepting a phenomenon. Can you answer, are their any medical complaints that you might see where you would say "look, homepathy is not apporariate for this, you really do need to go and see your doctor now"?

I have no doubt at all that many of the people you treat recover. You have a hypothesis that this is due to the inherent properties of the treatments you use and I have an alternative hypothesis than could also explain the result you see, but has yet to be ruled out. We have opposing ideas so ultimately what it comes down to is the strength of the evidence on either side. Not anger, agression or harsh words. Just what reason dictate. Unless you think reason is not a valid approach?

re: Where's the beef?

Jim Chatham — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:14:44 GMT

In the early 20th century, John Brinkley made a fortune by transplanting goat testicles into men to cure their impotence. 16,000 people received the procedure, thanks to Brinkley's direct marketing campaign, including press agents, newspaper advertising, and a popular radio medical talk show. All these people were suckered in because Brinkley had testimonials. No evidence of efficacy, no explanation of how it worked - just testimonials.

The American Medical Association is gracious enough to label homeopathy as "untested" only because they haven't shown that homeopathy can lead to the delay of receiving appropriate therapy or diverts care to unproven methods. Otherwise, it would be called "quakery". One of the hallmarks of quackery is that anecdotal evidence or testimonials is the main basis for "success" of this modality.

The idea that water retains the memory of whatever substance it formerly contained is ludicrous. The idea that drinking this water can cure you of a specific ailment other than dehydration is ludicrous. The whole concept is laughable and absurd.

Yet homeopathy has testimonials and an effective marketing campaign.

Anyone care to give up their viagra for goat testicles?

re: Where's the beef?

SpiderWoman — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:24:01 GMT

Today, I told two people that, in my view, homeopathy was unlikely to help them. So yes, I will certainly tell someone if I think that it is not in their best interests. My goal is to help people, not hurt them. As a person whose life was devastated by a lack of truth and caring - frankly, by pure greed - on the part of allopathic doctors, nothing could be more important to me.

What do you think? That homeopaths grab hold of people, tie them up, and prevent them from seeing allopaths? Let's get real here!

When it comes to issues of criminality, I'll risk my health with a homeopath before an allopath. The dangers inherent in any pharmaceutical drug are immense, but how many doctors provide anything approaching full information about those risks? How many doctors tell patients about the risk of arachnoiditis before spine surgery, something that destroys lives and is untreatable via allopathic methods - and also unresearched by it. How many doctors tell patients about the risks inherent in steroids, drugs that are prescribed quite casually - such as Cushing's syndrome or avascular necrosis? The fact that these dangers are not generally revealed to patients is what I consider criminal. Nothing that a homeopath does is even in the same ballpark.

Let me make clear here that I do believe that allopathy has a legitimate place in healthcare. However, the fact is that it does a huge amount of harm directly through its procedures.

In fact, the kind of error I referred to by Bayer AG - which you seem not to want to address - most assuredly is indicative of a lack of good controls. (This is assuming that their story of the reason, that is was a tainted product from a subcontractor is true. If not, then the truth is even worse.) It went on for two years! It beggars the imagination to suggest that there were good controls. 22,000 people died - about 1,000 a month - because of that lack of control. And that doesn't include the 12 years before the time that the whistle was blown on these deaths. Also, where was the FDA in this? It stood by and allowed it to happen. I stand by my statement that pharmaceutical firms do not have adequate safety or quality controls, and that the FDA does not genuinely try to protect the public. Where is your response to this specific event and its relationship to the idea of adequate safety controls in pharmaceutical firms? Claims that there are such controls don't make it true.

Where is the response to the point that 60,000 people died because the manufacturer of Vioxx hid the information it had documenting that such deaths were likely to occur?

I'm accused of not responding to arguments made. I cannot respond to every single one, but I can make points that demonstrate that arguments are not valid, as the previous two paragraphs make clear in demonstrating that pharmaceutical firms do not have good controls or behave in anything approaching an ethical or humane manner. (And neither does the FDA act in an ethical manner.)

No, I cannot spend the time required to go through every single study listed to see if it seems valid. However, I have documented why one of the recent, greatly ballyhooed studies claiming no link between thimerosal and autism is far from legitimate. But you haven't responded to that. I've cited a study by JAMA, which comes from the arena you are claiming is the valid method of study, that shows a lack of efficacy in childhood vaccines. You haven't responded to that. Yet, you complain that I haven't responded to your general claims of the legitimacy of studies. It seems to me that my points- made from personal knowledge of the studies cited, rather than simply the claims made by the studies - are more valid than your citations or general claims.

People choose homeopathy because they trust it more than allopathy. The comments made above are examples of why that's true. Nothing I can say is going to change your minds, stavros and Harradine. You have the right to hold your views - but the statements you've made claiming general efficacy and ethical behavior on the parts of pharmaceutical firms, the FDA, and doctors who prescribe these products without informing patients of the known risks don't stand up to scrutiny.

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:37:07 GMT

Spiderwoman, my only view is as I have said. There is an explanation why some people who visit homepathy feel better afterwards. I would like to understand what that explanation is.

It could be a, b or c. This can be tested. Without doubnt I am not here to defend pharmaceuticals. Like I say, whether one has derived benefit from these or not is of little relevance to the issue of homeopathy.

One possibility is that the principle of like treats like is genuine. Another explanation is that placebo effects are at work. Maybe, as a practicioner, this really doesn't matter to you and as long as some people feel better then that's good enough. But wouldn't you like to know for sure? Doesn't your curiousity kick in and make you really want to understand exactly what homepathy is all about?

If so, then there is a very prevalent view with not insignificant evidence that the effects of placebo are exactly as you would expect as placebo. Perhaos this is true, perhapos it isn't. But wouldn't you like to know for sure? Isn't it a possibility that you are even prepared to entertain?

If not, then that is sad and it means you're not really interested in what you do or how it works. If so, then fantastic, I applaud your open mindedness and candid honesty.

Sadly I rarely come across homeopaths who are genuine interested in undersanding their own methods. I have to say, I rarely ever come across a GP who is either. Their ignroance of the products they prescribe is shocking. But one does not excuse they other. I am interested only in honest, open minded people with a genuine desire to understand basically what is going on. I hope that describes you.

All the best

re: Where's the beef?

Jim Chatham — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:27:03 GMT

Just a short while ago, I found a tube of Zimac Cold Remedy that someone had dropped in our office elevator. I was going to throw it away (and still am) before I realized it was a homeopathic remedy. Given my participation in these online discussions, is that fate or what?

The active ingredient listed is Zircum Gluconium 2x. So I googled it and found the search results littered with complaints and lawsuits. Apparently, a lot of people have lost their sense of smell and/or taste by using this product.

Surrealism can be found in a press release from Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (the manufacturer of Zicam Cold Remedy). Here they address one Doctor's presentation which first brought light to the problem:

"...the analysis was largely anecdotal and based on unsupported analogies and generally appeared to lack scientific merit." (http://www.integratir.com/newsrelease.asp?news=2130981573&ticker=MTXX&lang=EN&title=null)

Talk about irony! Suddenly science is useful again to the homeopathy manufacturers - at least when it comes to taking money out of their pockets.

In 1937, 5000 Toronto schoolchildren were given an intranasal zinc compound to prevent Polio. It didn't work and a lot of kids lost their sense of smell and taste. So, the data was there. Currently, the FDA is looking at strengthening controls on the use of zinc in homeopathic remedies.

Still, I can't figure out what zinc has to do with the common cold. If like cures like, wouldn't you want some virus-laden mucus?

re: Where's the beef?

hmonson — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:23:01 GMT

Harradine -

I appreciate your comments. And I'd like to see good studies done - but it must take into account the homeopathic approach, not simply try to force it into the allopathic one. A big problem with coming up with these studies is money. It costs a lot and takes time, two things that few homeopaths have much of. Most are simply trying to survive. The idea that £50 for a consultation is a lot of money does not take into account the hours that may be spent in analyzing a case. For me, a case takes whatever time is necessary. A patient rarely walks out the door with a remedy. I may take many hours on a single case, and it never affects what a patient pays.

Like treating like is not as simple a matter as it first appears. The entire point is to match a patient's symptoms picture - mental-emotional, physical, modalities (things that make symptoms better or worse), and even other things. The idea that a diagnosis of, say, irritable bowel syndrome for one person has the same meaning that it does for another is nonsense - at least, as far as any homeopath who takes the art seriously. (Note that I do not call it a science. But then, I would not call allopathic medicine a science, either, in spite of its illusions to that effect. It merely borrows the veneer of it.)

What made it clear to me that placebo cannot be what's at work is the fact that relief can be permanent, and it can show in tests, like blood work, urinalysis, or other diagnostics. The idea that the reversal of my arachnoiditis could possibly have been a placebo effect is nothing less than absurd. If you know anything about this disease, you would understand that no placebo could possibly result in stopping the inflammation of the arachnoid membrane of the central nervous system, which is a permanent characteristic of the disease - in fact, is the source of its name. That, and placebo would not have maintained its effect or had the ongoing improvement of the condition for several years. Arachnoiditis is invariably a progressive disease. That is, of course, anecdotal - but if something like that has happened to you, then there simply is no way to discount it. It's a fact and must be considered in one's world view.

On the other hand, homeopathy is not always successful. In some cases, I can see why, though it takes the eyes of a homeopath to see the logic. (And yes, there is a logic involved, but it starts from a different paradigm than that of allopathy.) In some cases, the reason is likely not finding the right remedy at the right potency, or the right remedy doesn't exist.

And, I would agree that there are cases in which people feel better for a short while, but that the effect is placebo. However, as I discussed in an earlier message - referencing an article from an allopathic medical journal - no placebo effect exists over the long term. In such cases of short term effect, the result may or may not be the homeopathic treatment.

As to the reasons for it working, I'm the first to acknowledge that we do not know. I personally do not call it energy medicine and do not approve of the term, as no one knows if that's how it functions. But I live in a world in which I don't know everything, which I believe to be a realistic approach, so am willing to accept not knowing. But, I'm truly willing to learn - and that's why I, a person with a background in science, who literally grew up with Scientific American on the coffee table and did the math games as a child (when Martin Gardner wrote the column), have been able to accept a new way of seeing health, medicine, and even the world as a result of my experiences.

It would interest me to have an honest and open discussion on the question of how homeopathy works, how and when it is and isn't effective, and also a devil's advocate role against the homeopathic point of view. But, when the subject is simply ridiculed, or when countless claims of studies that purportedly demonstrate that it doesn't work are trotted out - nearly always without any real understanding of how those studies were made or what bias may have existed in the researchers - then there's really no point, other than to attempt to demonstrate how dishonest or blind those arguments are.

By the way, I'm currently doing some reading in quantum physics with the goal of trying to see how and if it can be related to homeopathy. Unfortunately, many on the homeopathic side of things tend to latch onto something that sounds really good and seems to support their particular view of homeopathy, then use it to try to show that it supports it, but they do so without having any real understanding of the matter. My own hunch is that we will find a connection, but it won't be in the manner that most homeopathists think. The fact is that quantum physics, while very strange to our way of seeing the world, when applied at the macro level has always been effective at predicting how things work - better than Einsteinian physics and never yet shown to have a flaw, unlike the Newtonian or Einsteinian approaches. I see Newtonian physics as a subset of Einsteinian physics and Einsteinian physics as a subset of quantum physics, by the way.

But now, I'm rambling. In any case, your comment about rarely finding homeopaths who truly want to discuss honestly could very well be true - but keep in mind that we are a group currently under attack. It's a normal and human response to become prickly under such a circumstance. And, on the other side of that coin, I've yet to find a single allopathic doctor - other than ones who have turned their backs on allopathy and switched to homeopathy - who was willing to treat homeopathy with anything but contempt, but without any comprehension of what it actually is.

re: Where's the beef?

hmonson — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:36:59 GMT

P.S. hmonson and SpiderWoman are the same person. I think that I created accounts two times with the same e-mail address, and both were accepted. Somewhere during this discussion, the system must have made the connection between the two and switched from SpiderWoman to hmonson.

re: Where's the beef?

stavros — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:36:13 GMT

I think this will be my last comment because I feel we are circling around.

I did indirectly address your comment on Bayer by saying that "errors happen" and they will happen again. Further, it is not my purpose or will to defend such errors. Our point is homeopathy so let's stick to that.

I totally agree with Harradine: there are ways to test these claims. And the majority of tests hasn't shown efficacy. So there is no strong evidence to support the claims. If you don't like the current scientific test then devise new ones. 200 years (I repeat myself here) is an amazing amount of time for nothing to have changed or proved in homeopathy. Grace period is over.

Further: as already stated homeopathy goes against current science. So either current science is wrong or homeopathy doesn't work more than placebo. You choose.

Finally: if it is proved beyond doubt that it works (which seems highly unlikely!) and how it works, then claims that it heals can be made. Until then no homeopathic "doctor" has the right to claim that it works because people are gullible and will believe whatever they are told.

As you can see things are pretty simple.

On your other note: which parts of Einsteinian physics (as you call it) and Quantum Physics are you trying to compare? You've got Newton in there as well so it is probably either about gravity or mechanics. If it is gravity then you are wrong: Einsteinian and Quantum Physics have absolutely nothing to do with each other currently. There is no Quantum Theory of Gravity yet. If it is Mechanics then again you are wrong: Quantum Mechanics cannot be applied to the macroscopic scale due to the vastness of the systems involved.

You need to read more (much more) on Quantum Physics if you want to get a relatively good grip on it. And believe me it is an amazing and thoroughly interesting subject! Enjoy the journey.

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:13:41 GMT

hmonson,

It would be great so see homeopathy really studies finally until we know enough about it to say either way. I don't think funding for this should be the responsibility of the practicioners. Perhaps they could contribute a collectively and obviously they should give up their time for research, as any good health professional should be expected to do.

Homeopathy manufacturers such as Weleda easily have enough revenues to fund very high quality studies into the effiacy of homeopathy. This they could do. I suppose the problem then would be that, just as pharmaceutical studies come under criticism for being indistry funded, then industry funded homeopathy studies could be criticised too. But it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Interesting what you say about how you slect treatment. Tell me more. What kind of factors do you consider when deciding what should be in a treatment? Clearly it is very individualised, but how does the thought process work? What logic do you use?

Like I said, my interest here is in understanding if homepathy does have a measurable, detectable effect on the body- if it really can be said to be pharmaceutically and biologically active- or if the reason why some people walk out the door and feel recovered is due to some other reason. Placebo effect are very complicated and very poorly understood in many ways, so its important. Even if homeopathy does turn out to be explained entirely by placebo effects, this doesn't mean that it insn't interesting. For example, do some illnesses have a greater response to placebo than others? If so, which ones and why? Are some prople more likely to respond to placebo, or does some set of circumstances or practises maxmise this so much that this alone could reasonably be considered an effective form of treatment?

My complaint about homepathy is that none of these questions are being explored or answered by the very people best placed to answer them- the practicing homeopaths. While they continue to deny that placebo effects might be the very bread and butter of what they do, they miss a great opportunity.

I agree with you that energies and vital forces are not a sensible way to think. Vital force was the phrase used for whatever it is that the lungs add to the blood before we knew that oxygen existed. Obviously our understanding of the body has moved on since then and its just daft for any modern practise not to take all this new knowledge into account when treating a human being.

Medical miracles do occur. I've heard of some cases where the odds of the eventual outcome were so low that it just seems implausable if I hadn't seen it for myself I wouldn't have beleived it. But, although it is tempting to draw conclusions from that, it is not strictly wise to use these amazing examples of hard evidence for one treatment or another. By their very nature they are rare, which makes any sort of conclusion very hard to make. I knew someone who made a complete recovery from lung cancer despite being a heavy smoker. His odds were less than 5%, but he lived for another 25 years (still as a heavy smoker) will full remission of the cancer. I have no explanation for that. But that's the point. I have NO explanation for that. I will not try to fit one around it, I just don't have one.

Perhaps your conditions is the same. Perhaps you will never know why it recovered. Perhaps whatever the reason was is simply not ever going to be understood while we are alive! It might be homeopathy, but even so, such a rare and one off occurence can hardly be considered very strong evidence for a general principle. Although I accept that it would be difficult not to see it that way in the circumstances.

I think homeopathy is often ridiculed becuase of the explanations that people give for how it works. With the greatest of respect, often these really are just as silly as astrology, showing a genuine misunderstanding of how human knowlegde has progressed over the years. Often people will then say "aha! but science has got it wrong before!" which is ofcourse true if by that they mean ideas that were once not accepted eventually found favour. But this is different. The idea of the memory of water ans succession making a substance more powerful is like arguing that the moon is infact made of cheese. This may one day turn out to be true, but for that to be tha case, then so many people must have been getting so many very basic things wrong that is just seems implausable.

However, if the evidence that homepathy worked above and beyond placebo was robust and watertight, the obviously such mechanistic studies would bne taken more seriously. But even this evidence is far from robust, or negative. That's why homeopaths often are simply brushed aside. Becuase they are arguing points that don't make any sense to people who study the world and the premises they are basing these on might not even be real.

But I don't want to take that attitude, I think homeopaths simply have a very different world view. They do not accept the methods of science and are not opf the same mold. I don't think this will ultimately do them any favours, and I think they exists by and large because the public don't think in scientific terms either. But my point still stands, even if homepaths do accept the rational obviousness of the placebo effect at work in their treatments, I still think they can teach GPs a thing or two about how to administer treatments and pass on some of that placebo effect to fully maxmise the effiacy of a treatment.

Any conversely, many homeopaths quite wrong dismiss the evidence based approach to mdern medicine, finding no benefit at all in any of the myriad of modern therapies. They no do accept any of the benefits that have been dervied from modern medicine and sadly often create (e.g. this website) a very simplfied and incorrect view of medicine as an attempt to support their own view. This isn't correct or in the best interest of patients at the end of the day and that sort of thinking will indeed draw a great deal of criticism. When the basis of a therapoy is on shaky ground, it seems unwise to attack methods and systems of science which are. That will only end up magnifiying the failing of homeopathy in the long run.

Moidern medicine has many failings too, but it also has a firm committment to research and development of new methods. Not just drugs, but obviously, since our bodies use chemistry to function, these have a role.

re: Where's the beef?

David — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:39:56 GMT

If orthodox medicine is so great,why is there so many deaths (300,000 USA over 100,000 UK annually),from this medicine. Why do Pharma Companies hide trials data proving that the drugs dont work which ends up with patients dying. Take Vioxx over 149,000 died with heart attacks using it. Celebrex not much better. I dont hear of any deaths from homeopathy. So instead of getting in a sweat over Complementary Medicine why do we not investigate the Orthodox Medicine ? The UK Government has just spent over £74million for a statin drug over 2 years that the Drugs Company new didn`t do what they said it would. Also the Companies directors were selling off bonds knowing the profits would collapse. Thats fraud and if push comes to shove ITS MURDER. Knowing a drug doesnt work and giving it to unsuspecting patients who are dying from it is literally MURDER. Lets investigate these companies.

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:45:23 GMT

David, the companies are neing investigated. In the case of vioxx and celebrex this is not just by the regulators but also the courts.

As has been pointed out quite a few times however, none of this is evidence that homepathy is effective. It might be safe, but is that becasue it doesn't actually do anything?

And is it safe if it diverts funds away from other sources of prevents people from getting treatment that is more effective?

And more fundamentally, it is right to promote a system as effective in in fact it isn't, whether this be froma pharmaceutical company, homeoapth or any other source?

It is correct to teach "Bachelor of Science" degrees in UK universities in subjects which are definitely NOT science, such as complementary medicine?

re: Where's the beef?

Robert Steele — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:34:42 GMT

Drug company trials are NOT transparent. Many, many trials are started, stopped, redesigned several times BEFORE finding the company's desired result. Problems often occur with trials heading down a negative path. Problems encountered do not become part of the record and the scientists conducting the trials are sworn to secrecy. Only the data from the successful trial is submitted to the approving agencies, in our case the FDA. Is the FDA unbiased? Not on your life, literally! FDA scientists rely on the data provided by the drug company. Now if you think that is cosy, FDA scientists also receive private research money from the very companies whose drugs they approve. Now these are things that are not only morally repulsive but life threatening. Shouldn't this be a topic for your concern? Hundreds of thousands killed, injured or just plain given ineffective drugs each year. And your concerned about homeopathy? Why? Any one you know killed or injured by it? The answer is no. Please take the passion involved in attacking homeopathy and put it to saving lives in the system you are helping to protect.

Homeopathy is a harmless and often astoundingly effective system of medicine that is often most triumphant in maladies judged untreatable by allopathic doctors.

"You people", an offensive phrase often used in reference to ethnic/racial groups, was used to describe "my people" by one respondent above, indicates that a line is drawn, mind closed. As frustrating as it must be to hear annecdotal reports and studies that support homeopathy, they are true. Don't dismiss them because the basis for the 'science' stretches your own belief systems, it does mine as well. Remember we're talking about success stories here and they're staring you in the face. Placebo effect? Yes, no doubt to some extent, but so it is with allopathic drugs. But one small question remains. If a positive homeopathic response is a placebo one, why is it that so many patients who in theory should have experienced it while undergoing treatment from a regular doctors medication, did not?

Lastly, if you are successful in ridding the scourge of homeopathy from the face of the earth, the tens of millions of patients happier and healthier from its use will benefit how? Please think this over carefully. This not about people making enormous profits, most of the pracitioners I know, make just a few thousand a year. It is not about money obviously, it's a genuine desire to help.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a doctor of alternative medicine and have an advanced diploma in homeopathic medicine but believe the most logical medical path is one paved with integrative medical stones. Removing those stones and throwing them at each other will strike the paients the hardest.

re: Where's the beef?

Harradine — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:12:15 GMT

I'm certainly not calling for a ban on Robert. Just a more honest debate about it. Obviously, it goes without saying that this applies to everything, pharmaceuticals too.

Not banning homepathy, just ensibly exploring the phenomenon as any reasonable person would do.

re: Where's the beef?

Claire — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:46:26 GMT

@ Graham,

Angel Biotechnology, which is supplying the polyclonal antibodies to Materia Medica, is using GMP technology to produce well characterised biological entities (hint: Wikipedia) which have *nothing* to do with homeopathy. Materia Medica goes on to use these materials to produce ultra-low dose homeopathic products - see here:

http://www.billamag.net/news-text-main.asp?NewsTextID=543. Pharmas are indeed researching biologicals such as polyclonals for future biopharmaceuticals; again, this has *nothing* to do with homeopathy.

re: Where's the beef?

Dr Rick Dagless MD — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:34:10 GMT

Naturopath Dr Harald Gaier betrays his ignorance of science and the lack of cohesion in his opinions as soon as he mentions quantum mechanics. Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ does not show that the law of causality does not hold, it places limits on the precision we can measure related properties of quantum systems. Causality is still alive and kicking in the quanum mechanics. Does Gaier really believe that we have to abadon concepts of causality? I humbly suggest he goes and bangs his head against a hard object and see if causality kicks in.

Secondly, does Gaier really believe that statistical evaluation of evidence is not possible? Can we not ask questions like "If I treat a patient, with symptoms X, Y, Z, with intervention H, what is the probability that the patient will experience an improvement over a placebo?". A simple question. But homeopaths will do anything rather than confron the fact that the answer for them is 0%.

re: Where's the beef?

Veronica Walton — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:52:34 GMT

THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO SEE!!!!

Homeopathy is under attack yet again. Does this really matter when those who it has helped know it is the best thing in medicine since soap was introduced onto hospital wards to stop cross infection and saved thousands of lives. Who cares if some people refuse to try it and refuse to believe in it, I for one cannot be bother to argue with such ignorance.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I was so impressed by how homeopathy had helped all my family I decided to train as a homeopath. Who wouldn't want to learn to this wonderful form of healing when having witnessed an elderly father bed ridden with advanced scleraderma and declared incurable get up and start gardening again after a few months treatment with a few simple remedies? I certainly would not have given up a very well paid job and spent four years studying this amazing science had I not had believed it to be far better than mere placebo.

I don't want to get involved in all this argueing over this scientific trail or that as I and hundred of thousand other peole KNOW it works and that is all that matters. I could not care a fig about all you non believers, it is your loss. I will however point out that all the comments about the substance being so diluted it cannot possibly work misses on the most important part of what makes a remedy so powerful and yet gentle in it's healing. The important point to be noted is that between each dilution the remedy is "energised" by a special process called sucussion and it is this process that makes the remedy work, not the dilution.

What everyone is forgetting here is that homeopathy is in fact an Energy Medicine and cannot be tested in trails in the same way a material drug can be. It is akin to testing your gas supply with a water meter, it won't work. Homeopathy is a science unlike any other and cannot be tested in the same way a drug can.

re: Where's the beef?

graham — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:13:25 GMT

Dear Jim and Harradine,

Any argument - your arguments - against Homeopathy is based upon the belief that it cannot work OR that quite simply there is not an adequate explanation for it. If we were all to adopt such an attitude there would be little progress. Can you imagine when researchers considered researching magnetic resonance how people would have scoffed against claims that it could be used as the basis of a medical scanner. There are many such instances. Thankfully our society comprises those who the willingness to conduct research into unknown or unexplained phenomena and the sceptics - usually those who have been there seen it done it.

Homeopathy is a phenomena which has yet to be explained. Nevertheless Russian researchers have skipped the argument over why it works and have simply accepted that it does work. They have identified the antibodies produced using homeopathy and they have isolated them. More than that, they have manufactured them, researched their usefullness, registered then as pharmaceutical products - which are being sold widely. Moreover this has been of sufficient importance to have interested other pharmaceutical companies such as the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world GSK.

That homeopathy does or doesn't work is an argument that will rage but, as you can see, there is justification that it does work. You know practitioners are human and humans make mistakes - articles published in credible peer-reviewed medical journals have shown that a GP gets his diagnosis correct about 50% of the time. (Another good statistic from a peer-reviewed journal is that drugs are about 50% effective). The same applies to homeopaths. Can they be expected to select the right remedy every time? Can you remember that doctors used to treat patients with lead, thalidomide, vioxx, even the sacred cow atenolol! Isn't it strange how time moves opinions.

Why would you want to spend your time being critical of homeopaths? Patients usually turn to homeopaths when the conventional approach - through the GP and medication - has failed or dissatisfied them.

Graham

re: Where's the beef?

Alex Lawrence — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:15:37 GMT

A sceptical friend's dog had arthritis. Could hardly walk. He was told to give the dog rhus tox. In a short while the dig jumped, ran and behaved generally like a puppy. My friend was convinced!

re: Where's the beef?

Julie — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:34:05 GMT

I read all the vitriol on this page with sadness. Surely there is room for both conventional and alternative medicine, and yes, there are probably issues that require 'cleaning up' in both. What is important is to take responsibility for your own health, have confidence in what works for your health, and to try to retain respect for the other practices. And be grateful we have the chance to choose between the options available.

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:20:52 GMT

Graham. You say that any agument against the efficacy of homeopathy, and in particular my argument against homeopathy, is based on the beleif that it cannot work or that there is no adequate explanation for it.

Not so. I have been very clear that this is not my argument at all. As I have been very clear, the fact that a phenomenon does not have an explanation in no way impedes acceptance of it as a genuine phenomenon. There are many examples of this in science and medicine. Observed phenomena can precede any sufficent explantion. The important factor is that the phenomena is genuine and repeatedly observed. Of course, if that is not the case, then exploring possible mechanisms is premature and unecessary.

What you are aguing against is not my point of view at all, but one I often hear supporters of homepathy resort to becuase they have developed an points to rebut such an argument, which in fact is neither here nor there.

Its important to understand that the main argument against the effectiveness of homeopathy is not that there is no sufficient explanation for it (some, such Veronica beleive it to be an "Energy Medicine", existing outside the boundaries of reality, others such as hmonson do not share this view). Indeed the main argument against homepathy is that the effects one sees can be accounted for by placebo effects and in fact everything about the treatment is exactly what you would expect to see if in fact it were nothing more than placebo.

Firstly, it either fails testing or is claimed to be impossible to test. Not only is this entirely false (and demonstrates a lack of understanding of hoe tests can be designes) but is exactly what one would expect to dubiously defend a hypothesis that would fail such tests, and repeatedly has.

Secondly, the main body of evidence in support of homeopathy is personal experience or testimony. Again, this is identical to what one would expect if the effects were entirely placebo.

Thirdly, the method of administration is often critical to the results seen with homeopathy. The elaborate methods and lenght of consultation, the amount of patient interaction, all of these factors maximise placebo effects and could easily be an alternative explanation for homeopathy's results.

Fourthly, the naute of the illness which are most successfully treated with homeopathy. mabhy of these have a very strong pscyhological or emotional compnonent and many more have a self writing component. This again makes the placebo response more likely.

Of course, placebo effect account for all medicines, which is exactly why such testing is so essential. The underlying mechanism is something we can explaore once we have robust evidence of the efficacy of homepathy above and beyond placebo, which remains asbsent.

I approach the problem rationally. My oint of view is that the effectiveness of homepathy that people talk of, the patients who undoubedtly derive benefit, clearly has an explanation that we as rational human being can use out powers of reason to understand. There are several hypotheses. One is that homeopathy's effect are due to placebo. This hypothesis has a great deal of merit given the points I have outlines. This is not a hypotheis that can be dismissed as blindness, ignorance or dismissinveness. For it to be discounted, strong evidence is required.

My argument against many supporters of homeopathy is their point blank refusal to even countenance such a possibility. They will not hear or accept that this may be a reality. it is not a possibility they will even allow their mind to explore. That to me is an irrational and somewhat disappointing and regrettable position, because it precludes further rational discussion. Don't supporters of homepathy really want to understand all possibile explanations of their art, ir are they only interested in the explanations that are most appealing to them?

That to me would be a great shame and is the very opposite of how rational minds operate. Rational people are open to all possibilities, all hyptheses and are interested in gathering evidence which can disount weak hypothesis and support reality. They are interested ultimately in the truth, not supporting one view or another, whatever the outcome may bem nomatter how personalliy dissappointing or preofessionally destructive.

Alternative hypothesis for homeopathies effects have been proposed. These include the effects of serial dilution, the memory of water, the principle of like treats like, the existence of undefined vital forces within the body, etc. Each and all of these hypotheses require us to discount vast bodies of chemcial and physical evidence which have amoiunted over centuries from all the corners of the world, been corrorborated many times using a plethora of experimental means and methods. They require us to reject mauch os science as we know it.

For us to do that, undoubtedly we require indredibly robust evidence in the first place that homeopathy is indeed a phenomena that does not have a more simple explanation that is consistent with current knowledge. That explanation is the placebo effect and has yet to be rules out. I find it very disheartening that I have yet to encounter a homeopath with enough intellectual integrity to admit this and treat the debate with the respect it deserves. This is why scientists are often dismissive of homeopaths.

We live in a time when the public understanding of rational argument and how to judge the strength of evidence is remarkable low compared with the very visible technolgical acheivments that aurround us. In fact that may mark our age out in history. A time when science has advanced more than any other, yet the understandng of what it is and what it is not has probab;y never been so low in the general populous. Beleifs such as the existence of energy systems that are not further defined and cannot be rationally discussed is a very clear symptom of that, especially when used as some form of evidence for a phenomena that can be explained with the, undoutedly less spiritually or emotionally appealing, simple nature of placebo.

So Graham it is not that I wish to spend my time being critical of homeopaths per se. If I could find a homeopath with a rational approach and an open mind, I would not be critical at all, but champion their integirty and bravery at standing out amongst the crowd of their own art. It is irrational thought and a lack of acceptance or ALL possibly explanations of phenomena that I criticise. This world view is absolutely fine when discussing religion, art, poetry or any other way one wishes to view the world. But it has no place in medicine. It has no place when trying to understand the world around us. It has no place when trying to inform us as a species, or the nature of the world around us.

That, as a scientist, is my view of the world and I welcome views from anyone who wishes to treat this subject with an open mind and expore ALL possibile explanations and look at the strength of the evidence for each. I have no time for those who have faith one of these explanations and will support it to their dying day regardless of the growing mountain of evidence to the contrary. I would not countenance such a view from a scientist (and their career would be a short and unproductive one), so I do not accept it here.

re: Where's the beef?

graham — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:48:03 GMT

Dear Harradine,

I am not a supporter of homeopathy just of sensible reporting. Thank you for your extensive response. It appears, surprisingly, that we share similar viewpoints. I also am sceptical of "Energy Medicine", existing outside the boundaries of reality, and support the need for clinical trials of CAM technologies although having my doubts over the misuse of clinical trials.

Graham

re: Where's the beef?

David G. T. — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:01:29 GMT

I have read this 'discussion' with interest.

I am not a Homeopath...

I have long since come to the conclusion that he older I get the more I realise I 'Know' less and less, about more and more....

The 'argument'.. for and against here, reeminds me very much of religion, where hundreds of millions of people around the world, from all walks of life, emphatically believe in 'their' version of God......and not one can offer any 'proof ' of existance whatsoever.

....Maybe they are Homeopaths also.....

re: Where's the beef?

Clarke — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:10:34 GMT

A few thoughts on the homeopathy debate:

My experience of the debate is that there is great polarity between homeopath beleivers vs. skeptics. Is it possible to find a middle ground? Is it wise to dissmiss the place of either homeopathy or other forms of CAM altogther because traditional scientific validation has not adequately backed it up? Just as, is it wise to dismiss the hundreds of years of good science that has been produced to form the basis of alopathic medicine?

Here in the States, there is a new breed of physician that is taking hold, a Naturopathic Physician. These individuals have both alopathic medicine and CAM triaining in a 4 year medical school. Homeopathy is one of the many methods of CAM that is taught as part of this training, alongside allopathic methods, including Pharmaceuticals.

If I come into the ER with a 106 degree temperature, perhaps homeopathy isnt the most appropriate initial course of treatment. Just as pharmaceuticals are not always the solution to the treatment and cure of chronic disease.

Perhaps we should all consider that there is room for both approaches in looking at this debate.

re: Where's the beef?

M Leadbitter — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:23:26 GMT

If homeopathy is "all in the mind" (placebo), why does it work with animals?

re: Where's the beef?

Trish Niblock — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:35:50 GMT

I am a member of a group of people who are hypersensitive to prescribed drugs....

so what are we supposed to do?

Should I say........" there is no proper scientific proof that it works.."

No... I am not stupid and went to a homeopath and since 1980 - the number of times I have used tradition pharmaceutica medication are nominal.

By the way... I tok half an Ibroprufen pill when I sprained a rib and was in acute pain........... as a result I had such high BP that I coculd hardly breath... my GP said "You should have taken paracetamol - Ibroprufen can put your BP up!!!"

BUT I didnt have a problem with my BP before I took the pill...and now I cannot take salt as it immediately results in raised BP!!!

THe previous Comment maker was correct.... the cows in that vet experiment obviously recognized the difference between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo!

The earth is still very flat for somepeople . TRish Niblock Edinburgh

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:44:31 GMT

MLeadbitter.

One thing that needs to be clear is that when people speak of placebo effects, they are not claiming that this phenomena is "all in the mind".

Withou doubt much of the effect of placebo can be due to the expectations of the patient, psychosomatic factors and positive beleifs concerning the treatment. Also merely being treated and cared for can induce healing.

But this is not simply what placebo effects are. here is a lot more to them than this. For one the fact that many diseases, even very serious and life threatneing diseases can be self righting, their symptoms can worsen and improve over time.

Trish, the study you mention. Did the cows really tell the difference between homeopathy and plaebo? There is only one way someone could draw that conclusions and that would be if placebo was also used and randomised as part of a controlled experiment. Was this the case? Otherwise we have no way of knowking how the cows would have responded to placebo and so can not reasonably draw any conclusion.

The earth would to this daw remain flat with the sun revolving around it had we not adopted such a rational approach come time ago. it is called science and it applies to homeopathy just as it does the earth, sun and moon.

re: Where's the beef?

Gotami — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:18:21 GMT

Concerning the aim of trying to stop officials from banning or restricting homeopathy and its practice, I do not think that trying to prove by scientific methods that it works is going to be effective because a) those in charge of money will cut back regardless if given the slightest window, and b) those who do not want to believe that homeopathy is of value will never be persuaded, no matter what the scientific or anecdotal evidence, even if their own mother swears by it, because to do so would mean upsetting their whole world view.

I notice that people do not try to hinder the practice of Christianity, even though it has never been scientifically proved to work, or to be based on fact. Even though the Buddha may never have existed and many think meditation is a total waste, I notice nobody tries to stop the practice of Buddhism.

Why not, then, declare 'Natural Health' a religion and then try and dare our establishment to refuse us the means of practicing our beliefs?

Whatever happened to 'I think you are wrong but I defend to the death your right to believe it.'? Or is that just an old-fashioned belief?

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:11:18 GMT

Gotami.

You make several points and I will try to address them one by one.

Firstly, I disagree that using scientific study to demonstrate an effect is pointless or ineffective. It may well not get you the result you want, but at least then the evidence will exist on which to form decisions. True the NHS and NICE are keen to restrict funds to the most effective treatments, so homeopathy could easily find itself under the chop if the evidence for effectiveness was lacking. Just as should be the case for ANY treatment which is not effective.

Secondly, I disagree strongly that were evidence to gather and accumulate, corroborate and support the efficacy of homeopathy, that you would not see more support for it from the scientific community. If scientific methods demonstrated that it clearly works beyond placebo, then obviously scientists (respective of their own methods) would support the treatment. The very reason why at the moment, they do not, is because this evidence does not exists, or is mostly negative. it is not a case of people seeing the evidence and chosing to ignore it. Its a case of the evidence clearly poitning towards the rational conclusion that homeopathy and placebo are one in the same. New evidence may come along and convince us all otherwise, but we can only wait for that and in the meantime there is no reason to expect that it will.

Scientists constantly upset their world view. Often this can be a very dramatic upset indeed. That is how we progress. This has been happening for hundreds of years. Since the times of the renaissance, via Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Feynmam. Their contribution has been entirely upsetting the world view. So this is not a problem for a scientist or rational person. In fact, anything which adopts a world view that is fixed and can never, ever be changed, reagardless of mounting evidence, (homeopathy would currently fall into this category) is more to be suspected as false that something that adapts its world view in the light of the best and most sounds emerging evidence.

You mention that people do not try to hinder the practise of Christianity despite its lack of scientific proof. Now I think you are confusing some important issues here. I think that if a group of practicioners came along who said that prayer and prayer alone was effective in combating illness and that people should refuse evidence based medical treatment for just prayer, then you would indeed also find calls from the rational community to either provide robust evidence for this, or cease from spreading the harmful advice. That is exactly what is happening with homeopathy, its just that Christianity does not usually stray into this teritory (i.e. attempt to replace evidence based medicine).

So it is not in the least the role of rational people or scientists to stop people from practicing their faith. On the contrary, it is their role to defend reason and where faith or anyone else, even another scientist (they do this all the time) makes claims that are contrary to reason, provide the evidence for people to make their own minds up.

That is an interesting point you make, that if it were established that natural health were a religion, then it could defend itself by claiming the right to practise belief. This is more or less an admission that natural health practises are without merit regarding evidence and more on a par with blind faith. Quite a brave admission on your part. But, of course, if people really did want to abandon evidence and use methods based on faith, then this is their right as individuals of course. The only caveat I would add is that they should not advise others to do the same, otherwise it is perfectly valid for a rational person to say "what evidence have you got? None? Then you are giving me advise with no idea whether it might work for me or not, yet you say it will and wish you gain my trust". Most people would consider that a highly unethical act when dealing with the genuinely ill people.

I do defend peoples' rights to believe whatever they feel they believe. The role of science has never been to stop people from believing in things. It is there to stop people from spreading garbage which we know fine well is false but they are either too ignorant to understand that it is, or too dishonest to admit it. it is there to provide evidence of reality, but if people wish to ignore this and live outside the realms of reality, that is their choice. If you still wish to beleive the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it, you are free to do so. But if you wish to convince others of this, then I am free to engange with you in debate and expect that you present you reasons for this beleif as I will presen my reasons for beleiving the contrary and one of us will be right and the other wrong.

That is exactly what I have been doing. Not telling people they cannot beleive in homeoapthy, just that to advise it for others requires some evidence more than their own personal belief, which may be based on reality and may not. I put forward possible hypotheses for how homeopathy's effects could be explained.

There could not have been a clearer invitation for rational debate and reasoned argument than that- to discuss the merits and weaknesses of each hypothesis and decide which seems more reasonable based on the evidece

I don't think shifting the argument to align homeopthy with beleifs based ourely on faith does its case any favours Gotami, with all due respect.

re: Where's the beef?

Robert — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:48:24 GMT

Hasn't anyone heard of 'Live and let live' and 'each to his own'.

If a 'non-believer' doesn't wish to accept homoeopathy, then don't! but please don't prevent those who have already recieved benefit from it, from continuing to benefit in the future. ie. withdrawing funds from NHS homoeopathic hospitals.

For 40 years I brought up my family using homoeopathy, seeing a doctor was a rarity indeed.

Once, my son had a very nasty ulcer on his wrist ,gained while in Djibouti, serving with the French Foreign Legion. He deserted and escaped onto a visiting American warship. The attentions of a US Navy doctor couldn't heal it with his medications.

I gave him homoeopathic Hypericum the day I saw him, it practically disapeared overnight. One of many cures brought about by my administering homoeopathic remedies over the years and not only to my own family - and I'm a layman!

Incidentally, tiny infants don't understand placebos and respond to homoeopathic remedies, as do animals.

Well that's my lot! I shan't bother to read this blog any more.

re: Where's the beef?

Gemma — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:57:44 GMT

Millions of people can testify to success of Homeopathy, including children & pets. Placebo? Maybe, maybe not, but since millions of people have benefited with no adverse effects it should be made available on the NHS to those who prefer it. This would save the government millions of pounds. Although its not been 'scientifically' proven(using 'official' methods) can the sceptics prove it doesn't work? As for the sceptics who think it diverts patients from 'scientifically proven' drugs and leave a patient vulnerable to a disease, they should remember that Allen Roses of GSK admits that majority of drugs do not work in most people, & are 4th major cause of death(JAMA 15.4.98) It was recently reported that drugs deaths overall are stilll increasing! Drugs do not cure any disease just mask/alleviate symptoms, often cause other problems requiring more drugs and so on....not exactly an inspiring track record. As for the vaccine theory Phillipe Kourilsky of Pasteur Inst. admits "I'm amazed by the amount of basic science we don't know". The assumption vaccines work by simply producing antibodies is almost certainly wrong..."Hep.B vaccine is a good example. Its amazingly effective but no-one knows how it works" (just like Homeopathy!)Neal Nathanson US Office of AIDs research, (New Scientist, 27.5.02) Immunologist Prof. George *** argued for years that the smallpox vaccine was killing more children than the disease. Link between autism and MMR has been established by other scientists since Dr. Wakefield discovered it. Ironically scarlet fever, once a higly infectious disease, is never heard of -without a vaccine!

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:34:17 GMT

Robert,

I agree entirely (actually its got to the stage now that all the points I am making I have alreayd made several times in previous posts. Understandably people are not reading all of these, so making points I have already addressed!).

Of course people should be free to choose what they want as a treatment. This is something I have consistently argued. I make the careful distinction that for one to ADVISE others that a course of action or treatment is effective, do so from a perceived position of authority and hence take responsibility for other people#'s health to a degree, one should be expected to provide evidence, good evidence of safety and effiacy.

That is quite different from saying that individuals should be forces to take one course of action or another, which no one is saying.

But when it comes to NHS frunds, which are limited, which treatments are funded should obviously be evidence based. Otherwise there is a risk of wasting money on courses of action that are actually not effective and diverting funds from those that are. Of course this applies to all medicines and treatments, which is why NICE exists.

I have addressed the points about babies and animals and their response to homepathy many times previously. This does not provide evidence that their effects are not placeboe, since one would expect exactly this result with placebo.

What is interesting is how patients can, for many ailments, feel so much better after maxmised placebo responses. This is the interesting area of not just homepathy but many other types of treatment. So far, it is the most interesting area of homepathy, but sadly the one area homepathys refuse point blank to acknowlegde, admit or explore.

it is a hsame that while their practises have uncovered some phenomena that may be of genuine medical interest, they still prefer adopt irrational arguments that are totally inconsistent with their own evidence and worse, upheld and defend medieval notions about science and human physiology, while labelling others as blind.

It is within their hands to either study their subject rationally, using the systems of the modern era, or continue to cling to pre-enlightenment idealogy and see their discipline never pregoress beyond the intellectual level of alchemy or astrology. No one can force them to choose either!

re: Where's the beef?

Gemma — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:39:22 GMT

Harradine you say the government, with its limited funding should only fund medicine that is evidence based. Based on what? One assumes this means that any treatment is both safe and effective. Since official reports admit most drugs don't work in most people, and are 4th major cause of death - and rising; one has to question who or what determined their 'safety' and 'efficacy' if they produce such devastating results?

re: Where's the beef?

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:30:20 GMT

Hi Gemma,

There are various ways that regulators and health funders look at medicines to decide this.

From a regulatory point of view, anything that is classed as a medicine must provide evidence of safety and efficacy. Homeopathy is not required to produce this evidence since it is not legally classes as a medicine.

But more relevant to the pint above, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence decides which treatments should be availble on the NHS using additional considerations of cost and cost/benefit. So even if a medicine is known to be effective, if it is extremely expensive, it might not be approved if it treats only a few people, or is very expensive, for example.

So, I think the situation is more complex that what you say. You mention "official reports" when actually what you refer to was a speech by Allen Roses, Vice President of Genetics at Glaxosmithkline. Have you heard the speech? He was making the case for pharmacogenomics. The point was made to embed the idea that the future of drug therapy is to base treatment on the individual, based on the unique set of risk factors predetermines by their genome, which we now have the ability to sequence.

This is quite different from saying that offical reports state that most drug don't work in most people, anyone who has taken an aspirin can tell you otherwise.

As a major cause of death, drugs are dangerous things! Most dealth due to drugs are due to a small number of widely used drugs, such as warfarin, analgesics that lead to GI bleeding, etc.

Also Gemma, when you take about the devastating results of modern medicine, you ring out as a voice who (correct me if I am wrong) sees no benefit from modern medicine whatsoever. Is happy to listen to anecdotal evidence provided it supports alternatives, yet rubbishes the countless more stories of people who are alive and well today becuase of modern medicine? Who is only interested in the harms it can do, (which it can, that's why it is not all reaching) and none of its benefits? A one sided view I would say that ignores a great deal. But correct me if I am wrong.

Again, I am not here to sing the prasies of the drug industry. But also I don't think it is right to ignore how medical treatment has improved our life expectancy and health over recent years. I don't hold an extreme view in either direction, you could say, since I acknowledge both its harms and benefits, which of course distinguishes my opinion from the prevailing views in this website.

But when it comes to ma,king decisions about what are tax money should be spent on, I think the answer is very clear. The deicions should be based on the best available clinical evidence. And no cheating. Drug companies must be requires to provide ALL data relevant to their product and clinical trials therefore registered at the outset so their results cannot be hidden away later.

Equally, homeopathy, since it claims medical effects, should also be classes as a medicine and therefore have the same legal requirments as all other medicines, e.g. safety and effiacy testing. I have no doubt at all that it will pass safety testing with no hitch. But it may well find that is cannot demonstrate that it actually workes beyind placebo. At least then patients and consumers would know this.

I think homopeathic manufacturers are prudent not to claim that their prodicts are medicines, therby avoiding these legal responibilties. But it seems somewhat unfair for them to then market their products as medicines to people who buy them.

Must better to actually look into the effects of homeopathy properly once are for all, i.e. the placebo effect. No one would sensibly call this an active medicine, despite its ability to provide positive effects clinically. So how does this come about? Homeopaths are in a strong if not unique position to contribute to this and increase our understanding of these phenomena. But sadly so far they refuse to take part and deny these effects are irrelevant, preferring instead to explain the effects they see using irrrational beleif systems on a par with astrology and palmistry.

An opportunity wasted in my view. It seems homeopaths don't see the opportunity that is there for them and instead continue to argue long disproven counter-science and point out all the widely ackowledged failings of other approaches rather than address issues relevant to their own.

After many years, I have not encountered an homeopath ready to move beyond this mindset and adopt a rational approach to their own phenomena, which is disheartening to say the least.

re: Where's the beef?

Gemma — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:14:59 GMT

Harradine, Yes I am afraid of modern medicine having seen several friends and relatives suffer terrible side effects. It is impossible to produce a drug without side effects since scientists are unable to unravel the thousands of chemical and biological reactions a drug triggers in the human body (systems biology). When in hospital for a bone graft from my hip to rebuild my broken knee I was offered a plethora of drugs which I refused and used my own safe alternatives during my stay. After I left I suffered Post Traumatic Shock, with severe clinical depression as a side effect. I did take Dothiopine then because I was in such a state and would have taken anything to make me feel better. However after a few weeks I didn't improve despite trying different drugs, and all I was offered was stronger doses. It was only after a visit to a Homeopath that I discovered that I was suffering from PTS and after taking St. Johns Wort slowly recovered. I have since successfully used alternatives for my family and pets. I am more afraid of modern drugs than any disease. I am not alone, having studied this subject for many years I have met hundreds of people who feel exactly the same. I have mentioned that there have been many successful trials that are being ignored. No matter how many trials and successes the pharmaceutical industry has been and is still trying their best to ban anything that diverts attention from drugs. Drugs are a major source of revenue for governments which is why they are promoted to the detriment of better, safer alternatives.

Incidentally injecting viruses into healthy bodies (via vaccines)ignores that viruses and bacteria can mix, match or mutate creating more virulent strains, or even a new disease, and due to the staggered response, adverse effects can take weeks, months even years to manifest themselves, and may result in auto-immune diseases, allergies or new diseases years later. Viruses mutate many times a year, they figure out how best to thrive, adapt and move on. Just as visible species adapt to earth by natural selection and evolution, so do micro-organisms living in our bodies. Doctors admit vaccinia can activate other dormant diseases, just as anti-biotics have resulted in super bugs. Creating super drugs to combat super bugs will eventually result in even more mutations into ever stronger super bugs.

re: Where's the beef?

B Maya — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:24:42 GMT

Stavros - when you face your own nemesis, and hopefully before you hit the brick wall, I sincerely hope you are able to look beyond the comfort of intellectual theories, arguments and comforting proof which is provided by a very powerful sector of our western society. I trust that you will allow yourself to experience, as a unique individual, the opportunity to heal by experimenting with a broad range of alternative options which are currently labelled 'complementary'. After all they have worked for nigh on 200 years without change! The reason they have not changed for so long is quite simply because there is no need for change - 'no need to fix it if it 'aint broke' would apply here. The puzzle I always wonder at in all arguments of this type is why it is that any single person feels him/herself so qualified to judge something purely from his/her own subjective perspective? No matter how schooled, supported or repeatable that perspective might be, it is nevertheless a perspective. Many a Grade 5 pupil would call Grade 12 mathematics gobbeldy gook and a load of rubbish if it was presented to him, firstly because he does not have the matthematical perspective and skills to grasp what is presented to him and secondly because he is scared out of his wits at what is presented and therefore finds it easiest to scoff or attack - based of course on that which he does know and understand! He will have many friends to support him in his approach too I might add - all his fellow Grade Fivers. So, my suggestion to everybody would be to consider that just because our consciousness is not sufficiently developed to be able to grasp something, or why a treatment approach works, does not mean that it does not, nor cannot work. The successful application of anything, even once, is sufficient supporting evidence to point us in the direction of an exciting new voyage of discovery. This voyage should only end when we have an understanding of why. Never ever, should we be so arrogant as to reject something simply because it defies our own, or science's own, ability to understand it or develop methods to understand it. We would do well to sit back and observe rather than attack. When we attack another it is not because they necessarily deserve attack, but it instead serves to highlight something about our own undestanding of the world. Failing any understanding of the development of consciousness and therefore the resultant understanding of our current reality, I suggest all dissenters re-group and name their society the "Flat Earth Society" .

re: Where's the beef?

Harradine — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:29:05 GMT

B Maya.

You are wrong if you think that the modern scientific approach rejects phenomena that is cannot explain. This is something I hear said a great deal by alternative advicates- that science rejects that which it cannot understand or explain.

This is of course nonense and a proper analysis of the situation will show you not only that it is nonsense, but also foolish.

Firstly, moden medicine, includng drug therapy, uses methods that are not fully understood. They are known to be efficacious by unknown mechanisms but as long as they are consistently shown to work, then they are used. Studies of such treatments subsequently have taught us a great deal about not just the drugs in questions, but the body itself.

So the precise mechanism not being understood is no hindrence at all to alternatives. That alone would not mean they do not find favour. It is their failure to do anything more than placebo can do that attracts criticism.

Other than that, your seemingly post-modern, semi- new age esque outlook if fine for manking the world seem like a wonderful place for you or anyone else that you convince, but it does not share a relationship with reality in the way that science does. Science is alone in human endeavor precisely because of this relationship with truth and reality, since by very definition it is the best way we have of studiying and determining these.

This is particulalry important when providing advice on human health, where wishful thinking and new age clap trpa may be an attractive lifestyle choice for some people fallen from lifes perch, but no sensible basis for medical advice.

re: Where's the beef?

Bobby — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:42:52 GMT

Listen to this: My dad developed e- coli infection after a prostrate op. the GP put him on antibiotics, things were controlled just as long as he took the anti biotics and soon surfaced after the course was over and this happened three times, each episode the GP prescribed a stronger anti biotic, the urine analyses said- antibiotic resistant strain. We were left wondering what to do- no more anti biotics now, are we to wait and watch my dad die or turn to alternative? The homoeopath treated my dad and he was fine in a few days, no fever, no infection, no e- coli relapse since. I guess this is quiet shocking to the sceptics, why my husband is a allopath and he could not believe it, it went against this thoughts, ideas and beliefs. Now, my husband sees miracles on a daily basis with homoeopathy! !