homeopathy

[David_B]

Tom Bozzuto said:

The majority of physicists and chemists understand the physical properties of solvents, and how the molecules of a solvent (including water) can take a particular orientation (polarity) depending on a substance that they have been placed in contact with, despite the fact that the original substance is no longer in contact with the solvent. The theory is that
the polarity of the solvent can interact with some receptor sites or energetic systems (yes there are some that have been measured-all cellular communication is energetic).

So you’re saying that water will be different depending on what it’s been in contact with before. Is that a fair summary of the above statement?

Very reasonable studies in the effect of homeopathic remedies on animals and plants have been performed which totally discount the excuse that the homeopathic effect is merely placebo.

Such as? Where are these double-blind scientific studies? If they are so great, how have they managed to stay so hidden?

There are more than 100 scientific articles on homeopathy that have been reviewed in a meta-analysis by an independent group of epidemiologists and their conclusion was that the studies were well done, and that homeopathic remedies seemed to work on an effect other than placebo.

Unfortunately, meta-analyses can have problems because there is a tendency to only publish positive results. So if you analyze a bunch of studies that seem to show positive results, you’ll find positive results. That’s why it’s imperative that scientists always publish all of their results. They should not say, “Hmmm. This study didn’t show anything, so I won’t bother with it.” Because then if the next study does show something, it could have simply been chance, but we only see the positive side.

The Lancet, an extremely respected British Medical Journal, printed an article by a physician in Glasgow a few years ago showing the effect of homeopathic remedies on allergy. The editor was so impressed with the quality of the study, that in his comments, he stated 'either we have to finally admit that homeopathic remedies work, or we have to question the validity of the double-blind randomized trial that has been held up as
the gold standard of medical research.

Cite?

Again, you are mistaken. Homeopathic remedies are regulated by the FDA as well as the Homeopathic Pharmacopea!

Actually, Tom, it is you who is wrong. See the article linked to above, at Quackwatch, for a number of details about the FDA. Specifically, they do not regulate them as drugs. They do not force them to prove they work (or else they wouldn’t be on any shelves).

There has never been reported a death from taking a homeopathic remedy.

Well, duh! Something with no effect can’t have side effects! But I wonder how many deaths can be attributed to people taking homeopathic remedies instead of real medicine…

It may be perhaps because many of the critics of homeopathy rely on attacks on the supporter (or repetative boring quotations from quackwatch) rather than discuss the scientific studies that exist (of which there are some in homeopathy).

Ah, so we shouldn’t rely on scientists who have investigated it and found it to be baloney. We should rely on homeopaths who believe in it. How silly of us!

To make the discussion more interesting, there are some extremely interesting studies that suggest that the intent of the researcher significantly affects the outcome of the study.

So you’re saying homeopathy is really the placebo effect? This should suprise nobody.

Many reputable scientists are debating what the word “evidence” really means, and whether the placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study which has been the gold standard of medical research for so long is really the best benchmark of study as medicine goes in to the 21st century.

Please name these “reputable scientists” who want to overturn the proven methods of science in favor of…what? Magic?

The Reality Check website is run by the National Council Against Health Fraud (the quackwatchers by another name). Same sky, same chicken little.

Gasp! More scientists and doctors?! How dare they?!

BTW, have you found your reference saying NMR can tell homeopathic water from regular water?

[Tom_Bozzuto]

Originally posted by David B:
**Tom Bozzuto said:

The majority of physicists and chemists understand the physical properties of solvents, and how the molecules of a solvent (including water) can take a particular orientation (polarity) depending on a substance that they have been placed in contact with, despite the fact that the original substance is no longer in contact with the solvent. The theory is that
the polarity of the solvent can interact with some receptor sites or energetic systems (yes there are some that have been measured-all cellular communication is energetic).

So you’re saying that water will be different depending on what it’s been in contact with before. Is that a fair summary of the above statement?

Yes it is a fair summary.

Very reasonable studies in the effect of homeopathic remedies on animals and plants have been performed which totally discount the excuse that the homeopathic effect is merely placebo.

Such as? Where are these double-blind scientific studies? If they are so great, how have they managed to stay so hidden?

They aren’t hidden, they’re fairly well quoted in homeopathic literature (which it seems many critics fail to read).

There are more than 100 scientific articles on homeopathy that have been reviewed in a meta-analysis by an independent group of epidemiologists and their conclusion was that the studies were well done, and that homeopathic remedies seemed to work on an effect other than placebo.

Unfortunately, meta-analyses can have problems because there is a tendency to only publish positive results. So if you analyze a bunch of studies that seem to show positive results, you’ll find positive results. That’s why it’s imperative that scientists always publish all of their results. They should not say, “Hmmm. This study didn’t show anything, so I won’t bother with it.” Because then if the next study does show something, it could have simply been chance, but we only see the positive side.

Your justification or reference for this statement?

The Lancet, an extremely respected British Medical Journal, printed an article by a physician in Glasgow a few years ago showing the effect of homeopathic remedies on allergy. The editor was so impressed with the quality of the study, that in his comments, he stated 'either we have to finally admit that homeopathic remedies work, or we have to question the validity of the double-blind randomized trial that has been held up as
the gold standard of medical research.

Cite?

Will do when I get home to my references.

Again, you are mistaken. Homeopathic remedies are regulated by the FDA as well as the Homeopathic Pharmacopea!

Actually, Tom, it is you who is wrong. See the article linked to above, at Quackwatch, for a number of details about the FDA. Specifically, they do not regulate them as drugs. They do not force them to prove they work (or else they wouldn’t be on any shelves).

A presumption on your part!

There has never been reported a death from taking a homeopathic remedy.

Well, duh! Something with no effect can’t have side effects! But I wonder how many deaths can be attributed to people taking homeopathic remedies instead of real medicine…

Don’t know, but no one is suggesting that you take a homeopathic remedy for trauma, MI, GI bleeding, etc.

It may be perhaps because many of the critics of homeopathy rely on attacks on the supporter (or repetative boring quotations from quackwatch) rather than discuss the scientific studies that exist (of which there are some in homeopathy).

Ah, so we shouldn’t rely on scientists who have investigated it and found it to be baloney. We should rely on homeopaths who believe in it. How silly of us!

Physicians and scientists are not the same animal. Most physicians stopped being scientist when they got their diplomas. I know the reputations and qualifications of most of the physicians on quackwatch. They have a homeopathic knowledge of the CAM literature.

To make the discussion more interesting, there are some extremely interesting studies that suggest that the intent of the researcher significantly affects the outcome of the study.

So you’re saying homeopathy is really the placebo effect? This should suprise nobody.

I am also saying that many proven pharmaceuticals are!

Many reputable scientists are debating what the word “evidence” really means, and whether the placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study which has been the gold standard of medical research for so long is really the best benchmark of study as medicine goes in to the 21st century.

Please name these “reputable scientists” who want to overturn the proven methods of science in favor of…what? Magic?
Again, misquote me and refer to anything you don’t understand as magic.

The Reality Check website is run by the National Council Against Health Fraud (the quackwatchers by another name). Same sky, same chicken little.

Gasp! More scientists and doctors?! How dare they?!

These are usually mutually exculsive terms.

Do you know that one of the quackwatch docs was prohibited from being an expert witness in a case because he was determined to have no knowledge or training in the field he was criticizing?

BTW, have you found your reference saying NMR can tell homeopathic water from regular water?**

Later tonite, I’ll find the Lancet article, and the NMR one for you.

Tom

[fyslee]

Originally posted by Tom Bozzuto:
** The Reality Check website is run by the National Council Against Health Fraud (the quackwatchers by another name). Same sky, same chicken little.**

Sorry about the post mentioning Sue. It is an old one from 03-03-2000 04:10, at the bottom of page 1. I was actually replying to Tom, and it is what the message board chose to put up instead. Not having time to do anything about it right away (a patient was waiting), I later tried sending my post again, only to find that the post to Sue had been (fortunately) removed and replaced by the one I’d actually sent. Which meant that it ended up appearing two times. Tom managed to catch and answer the post in the short time it was there.

As far as the “National Council Against Health Fraud (the quackwatchers by another name)”, well, "What can I say? I’m at least in good company. I’m “against” quackery and health fraud. Who, other than a duck, would want to be “for” quackery?

Tom, I don’t know if you’ve read my post about the memory of water. It’s on page one, I think. What I say at the end of it, about otherwise logical people, still applies.

Sincerely,

Paul Lee

[David_B]

I had asked: “So you’re saying that water will be different depending on what it’s been in contact with before. Is that a fair summary of the above statement?” Tom responded:

Yes it is a fair summary.

Hmmm. Of course, water is always in contact with lots of things, so how do you even know what you’re comparing it with? How, exactly, is this tested?

I had said: “Actually, Tom, it is you who is wrong. See the article linked to above, at Quackwatch, for a number of details about the FDA. Specifically, they do not regulate them as drugs. They do not force them to prove they work (or else they wouldn’t be on any shelves).” You replied:

A presumption on your part!

Which part? That the FDA doesn’t regulate them like drugs, or that they could not stand up to the scrutiny? Doesn’t matter, I guess, 'cus I’m right in both statements. They are not regulated like drugs and they have not stood up to the scrutiny.

no one is suggesting that you take a homeopathic remedy for trauma, MI, GI bleeding, etc.

Well, I’m sure there is someone out there who would suggest that, but I’m glad you’re not one of them. That said, there are homeopathic remedies for other chronic conditions that should be treated with real medicine instead. If people take these and ignore the real medicine (or if they believe some of the homeopaths who say that vaccination is bad), they may indeed suffer and possibly die.

Physicians and scientists are not the same animal. Most physicians stopped being scientist when they got their diplomas.

Nice generality. I bet if I had said that most homeopaths don’t follow scientific procedures, you’d have jumped on me, yes? Yet it’s ok for you to say that about doctors.

I know the reputations and qualifications of most of the physicians on quackwatch.

And I’m sure you’re completely unbiased. I know some of these folks as well. You know what? I’d trust them over you any day.

I had said:“So you’re saying homeopathy is really the placebo effect? This should suprise nobody.” You replied:

I am also saying that many proven pharmaceuticals are!

Interesting response, especially with the “also.” So you just admitted that homeopathy is nothing more than the placebo effect. Well, it’s good to hear such honesty! You try to “also” say other drugs are as well. Maybe they are, I don’t know. But that has nothing to do with homeopathy and that is the topic of discussion here. Although now that the only defender of homeopathy right now has just admitted its results are due to the placebo effect, I’m not sure what more there is to discuss…

I had said, in reference to your claim about reputable scientists coming out against standard scientific methods: “Please name these ‘reputable scientists’ who want to overturn the proven methods of science in favor of…what? Magic?” You responded:

Again, misquote me and refer to anything you don’t understand as magic.

Then set me straight. I notice you didn’t answer my question.

I had said, about the NCAHF: “Gasp! More scientists and doctors?! How dare they?!” You replied:

These are usually mutually exculsive terms.

Hmmm. More ad hominem, implying doctors cannot be scientists. Well, in any event, I was talking about doctors and scientists, as in two separate groups. But that doesn’t mean doctors are not scientists as well.

Do you know that one of the quackwatch docs was prohibited from being an expert witness in a case because he was determined to have no knowledge or training in the field he was criticizing?

Name names and case, please. I’m not just going to take your word for it. And have no doubt, I will contact the person you’ve accused and others who are knowledgeable in that area, so don’t try to pull any BS.

Later tonite, I’ll find the Lancet article, and the NMR one for you.

I can hardly wait.

[David_B]

Update on the person who e-mailed me about my statements here but still doesn’t want to actually discuss things here. He sent a follow-up e-mail with more insults, calling me a bigot and saying I don’t know anything about what I’m discussing. I’m also blind and intolerant. Oh, and I’m silly for asking him to defend his claims. And I’m not different from somebody trashing other religions or races. Furthermore, if I ignore him, I will continue to live in ignorance.

I told him to either discuss it with me here or go away.

[system]

D. Reilly, M. Taylor, N. Beattie, et al.,
Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?
Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.

This study successfully reproduced evidence from two previous double-blinded trials all of which used the same model of homeopathic immunotherapy in inhalant allergy. In this third study, 9 of 11 patients on homeopathic treatment improved compared to only 5 of 13 patients on placebo. The researchers concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or controlled studies don’t. Their work has again be recently replicated and is
submitted for publication. (See Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Lancet 1986, below.)

D. Reilly, M. Taylor, C. McSherry,
Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homeopathic Potency with Pollen in Hayfever as Model, Lancet, October 18, 1986, 881-86.

The double-blind study compared a high dilution homeopathic preparation of grass pollens against a placebo in 144 patients with active hay fever. The study method considered pollen counts, aggravation in symptoms and use of antihistamines and
concluded that patients using homeopathy showed greater improvement in symptoms than those on placebo, and that this difference was reflected in a significantly reduced need for antihistamines among the homeopathically treated group. The results confirmed those of the pilot study and demonstrate that
homeopathic potencies show effects distinct from those of the placebo.

---

(The editorial for this issue of Lancet 1994;344(8937):1585) is interesting. It is presented here in its entirety:

(I’m sorry, but we cannot have copyrighted articles reproduced on our board. Please either paraphrase them or provide a link to the article. Thanks - Jill)

Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli
Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, June 1999

An extensive thermodynamic study has been carried out on aqueous solutions obtained through successive dilutions and succussions of 1% in weight of some solutes up to extremely diluted solutions, (less than 1x10-5 mol kg-1) obtained via several
1/100 successive dilution processes.

P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, G. Kastberg, et al.,
The Effect of Highly Diluted Agitated Thyroxine on the Climbing Activity of Frogs
Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 1994, 36:56.

This, and the study below, show that a homeopathic medicine can influence the growth and development of tadpoles in water.

P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, R. van Wijk, et al., Transmission of Hormone Information by Non-molecular Means,
FASEB Journal, 1994, 8, Abs.2313.

This, and the study above, show that a homeopathic medicine can influence the growth and development of tadpoles in water.

J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet,
Clinical Trials of Homeopathy
British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.

This is the most widely cited meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies of homeopathic medicines, 81 of which (or 77%) showed positive effect.

NOT ALL META ANALYSES SHOW ONLY POSITIVE ARTICLES

Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy. The researchers concluded: “The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a
regular treatment for certain indications.” Further, “The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a
surprise to us.”
Homeopathic vs conventional treatment of vertigo: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998 Aug;124(8):879-85 (ISSN: 0886-4470)
Weiser M; Strosser W; Klein P
Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH, Baden-Baden, Germany. weiser.michael@heel.de.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a homeopathic remedy (Vertigoheel, Heel Inc, Albuquerque, NM) vs betahistine
hydrochloride (active control) in the treatment of patients with vertigo of various origins in a confirmative equivalence trial. DESIGN:
Randomized (1:1) double-blind controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Fifteen study centers (general practice) in Germany between November 1995 and November 1996. SUBJECTS: A total of 119 patients with vertigo of various origins (from whom 105 patients could be analyzed asintended per protocol). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo attacks. RESULTS: Both homeopathic and conventional treatments showed a clinically relevant reduction in the mean frequency, duration, and intensity of the vertigo attacks. The therapeutic equivalence of the homeopathic remedy and betahistine was established statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning the main
efficacy variable, therapeutic equivalence between the homeopathic remedy and betahistine could be shown with statistical significance(confirmative analysis). Both remedies reduced the frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo attacks during a 6-week treatment period. Also, vertigo-specific complaints were significantly reduced in both treatment groups.

Homeopathic treatment of mild traumatic brain injury: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1999 Dec;14(6):521-42 (ISSN: 0885-9701)
Chapman EH; Weintraub RJ; Milburn MA; Pirozzi TO; Woo E Harvard University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

BACKGROUND: Mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) affects 750,000 persons in the United States annually. Five to fifteen percent have persistent dysfunction and disability. No effective, standard pharmacological treatment exists specifically for this problem. We designed a pilot research project to study the clinical effectiveness of homeopathic medicine in the treatment of persistent MTBI. METHOD: A randomized, ouble-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 60 patients, with a four-month follow-up (N = 50), was conducted at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital (SRH). Patients
with persistent MTBI (mean 2.93 years since injury, SD 3.1) were randomly assigned to receive a homeopathic medicine or placebo. The primary outcome measure was the subject-rated SRH-MBTI Functional Assessment, composed of three subtests: a Difficulty with Situations Scale (DSS), a Symptom Rating Scale (SRS), and a Participation in Daily Activities Scale (PDAS). The SRH Cognitive-Linguistic Test Battery
was used as the secondary measure. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance demonstrated that the homeopathic treatment was the only
significant or near-significant predictor of improvement on DSS subtests (P =.009; 95% CI -.895 to -.15), SRS (P =.058; 95% CI -.548 to.01)and the Ten Most Common Symptoms of MTBI (P =.027; 95% CI -.766 to -.048). These results indicate a significant improvement from the homeopathic treatment versus the control and translate into clinically significant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that homeopathy may have a role in treating persistent MTBI. Our findings require large-scale, independent replication.
While you chew on these for awhile, I’ll continue to look for the article on NMR and the other one on plant and animal effects.
Tom
[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]

[Tom_Bozzuto]

Physicians and scientists are not the same animal. Most physicians stopped being scientist when they got their diplomas.

Nice generality. I bet if I had said that most homeopaths don’t follow scientific procedures, you’d have jumped on me, yes? Yet it’s ok for you to say that about doctors.

I am one of those (doctors) Residency, two medical school faculty appointments, and about 20 articles authored. I think I’m entitled to speak from both sides of the fence. Nice generality about homeopaths, too.

I know the reputations and qualifications of most of the physicians on quackwatch.

And I’m sure you’re completely unbiased. I know some of these folks as well. You know what? I’d trust them over you any day.
No, no one is completely unbiased, at least I acknowledge it. And you are certainly entitled to trust anyone you wish.

I had said:“So you’re saying homeopathy is really the placebo effect? This should suprise nobody.” You replied:

I am also saying that many proven pharmaceuticals are!

Interesting response, especially with the “also.” So you just admitted that homeopathy is nothing more than the placebo effect. Well, it’s good to hear such honesty! You try to “also” say other drugs are as well. Maybe they are, I don’t know. But that has nothing to do with homeopathy and that is the topic of discussion here. Although now that the only defender of homeopathy right now has just admitted its results are due to the placebo effect, I’m not sure what more there is to discuss…
Nice generality again, because I said also, you jump to the conclusion that homeopathy is NOTHING BUT a placebo response. Please look at the articles I posted.
I had said, in reference to your claim about reputable scientists coming out against standard scientific methods: “Please name these ‘reputable scientists’ who want to overturn the proven methods of science in favor of…what? Magic?” You responded:

Again, misquote me and refer to anything you don’t understand as magic.

Then set me straight. I notice you didn’t answer my question.

I didn’t answer your question because this debate has been ongoing for at least 5 or 7 years. Journals on Medical Research have plenty of information.
I had said, about the NCAHF: “Gasp! More scientists and doctors?! How dare they?!” You replied:

These are usually mutually exculsive terms.

Hmmm. More ad hominem, implying doctors cannot be scientists. Well, in any event, I was talking about doctors and scientists, as in two separate groups. But that doesn’t mean doctors are not scientists as well.

I didn’t say they cannot be, but very few are involved in clinical research. For the most part they rely on journal articles and pharmaceutical representatives. JAMA published an article stating that only 15% of what physicians do in clinical practice is based on sound clinical medicine (so if you want to go to a doctor who wings it 85% of the time, be my guest). British Medical Journal states that of conventional medica research, only 1% of what’s published in journals has really proven the hypothesis by their study design and conclusions.

Do you know that one of the quackwatch docs was prohibited from being an expert witness in a case because he was determined to have no knowledge or training in the field he was criticizing?

Name names and case, please. I’m not just going to take your word for it. And have no doubt, I will contact the person you’ve accused and others who are knowledgeable in that area, so don’t try to pull any BS.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to name a physician who’s not involved in this discussion in this public forum. If you want, I can send to your personal e-mail.

Later tonite, I’ll find the
Lancet article, and the NMR one for you.

I can hardly wait.
**
[/QUOTE]

The Lancet article is in the ones I posted.

Tom

[system]

Tom, I found your explanation of MRI to be a little vague, so I hunted around for a reference online.

An excerpt:
"The MR images are obtained by placing the patient or area of interest within a powerful, highly uniform, static magnetic field. Magnetized protons (hydrogen nuclei) within the patient align like small magnets in this field. "

It doesn’t seem to be electrons that are being aligned…
[Note: This message has been edited by TubaDiva]

[Kyberneticist]

Hmmm. They disabled html? Possibly because of the hack attempt.
Oh well, for people’s convenience.
http://text.nlm.nih.gov/nih/cdc/www/66txt.html

[jab1]

I look at Tom Bazzuto’s posts and I feel like Phaedrus has returned.

I’m still waiting for him to tell us how water can “remember” a single molecule of a substance but not “recall” its container or any thing else that was ever in it.

How, for example, does one get distilled water in the first place if it’s affected by everything that was ever in it before? Hell, even rain water isn’t pure. Most rain drops are formed by water vapor collecting on dust particles. So it stands to reason that even distilled rain water would “remember” those dust particles.

---

When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[Tom_Bozzuto]

Originally posted by jab1:
**I look at Tom Bazzuto’s posts and I feel like Phaedrus has returned.

I’m still waiting for him to tell us how water can “remember” a single molecule of a substance but not “recall” its container or any thing else that was ever in it.

How, for example, does one get distilled water in the first place if it’s affected by everything that was ever in it before? Hell, even rain water isn’t pure. Most rain drops are formed by water vapor collecting on dust particles. So it stands to reason that even distilled rain water would “remember” those dust particles.
**

I didn’t invent the test, I’m just reporting where the study can be found. It doesn’t matter what the water was in contact with before. The data suggests that NMR spectra of solutes WITHOUT homeopathic remedy is different than solute WITH hometopathic remedy (all other conditions of the solute being equal–including dust, I guess!)

The first studies in this field were those conducted by Smith and Boericke (1966 and 1968) which showed that the structure of a solvent (ethanol and water) as it appears in the region of the OH and H2O signals in the NMR spectrum is modified in serial dilutions. The modification is even more marked if succussion is also performed as compared to dilution alone and even more remarkably, does not diminsh, but rather increases with increasing dilution.

Later, Weingartner (1990, 1992) demonstrated that the difference between NMR of a solvent in which Sulfur 23x has been diluted and a spectrum of a solvent alone relates to the intensity of the H2O and OH signals, whereas that of CH2 and CH3 signals do not vary (the chemical formula for ethanol is CH3CH2OH). In particular, the peaks of the homeopathic dilution are significantly lower (probability >99.9%) and broader than those of the solvent alone.

Variations in NMR resonance characteristics (in particular the relaxation times of T1 and T2) in highly diluted solutions of silica have been measured by another research team in France and published in an official physics journal (Demegant, et al 1992). It was observed that solutions of silica/lactose, prepared in centisimal dilutions according to homeopathic methodology, presented in increase in T1 and in the T1/T2 ratio compared to distilled water or to diluted and dynamized solutions of NaCl. These changes were also detectable with silica concentrations of 10(-17). A stimulatory effect of high dilutions of silica have previously been demonstrated on mouse peritoneal macrophages (Davenas, et al. 1987). This was the first case in which a difference of a physical nature was rigorously demonstrated between the solvent and a high dilution of a homeopathic remedy whose biological activity was established experimentally.
Smith R, Boericke GW. Modern Instrumentation for the evaluation of homeopathic drug structure. J Am Inst Homeopathy 1966;59:263.

Smith R, Boericke GW. Changes caused by succussion on NMR patterns and bioassay of bradykinin triacetate succussions and dilutions. J Am Inst Homeopathy 1968;61:197.

Weingartner O. NMR-Features that relate to homeopathic sulfur potencies. Berlin J Res Homeoapthy 1990;1:61.

Weingartner O. Homoopathische Potenzen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.

Demegant JL, Demegant C, Gries P, Poitevin B, Constantinesco A. Modifications des temps de relaxation RMN a 4MHz des protons du solvent dans les tres hautes dilutions salines de Silice/Lacrose. J Med Nucl Bioly 1992;16(2):135.
Davenas E, Poitevin B, Benveniste J. Effect on mouse peritoneal macrophages of orally adminsitered very high dilutions of silica. Eur J Pharmacol 1987;135:313.
(That’s how water does it!)

Tom

[system]

Originally posted by Kyberneticist:
**Tom, I found your explanation of MRI to be a little vague, so I hunted around for a reference online.

An excerpt:
"The MR images are obtained by placing the patient or area of interest within a powerful, highly uniform, static magnetic field. Magnetized protons (hydrogen nuclei) within the patient align like small magnets in this field. "

It doesn’t seem to be electrons that are being aligned…**

I’ve already admitted that I meant NMR not MRI (see above post).

Tom

[Note: This message has been edited by TubaDiva]

[CurtC]

Tom,

I’m glad you’re here. Your posts are polite and on-topic. Here’s a tip for quoting: put the quoted text inside {quote} and {/quote} markers, except use square brackets instead of curly braces (I couldn’t do it here else it would quote the word “and”).

I’ve been waiting for the scientific results you mentioned. I have to say that the first few, which are all papers published in journals of homeopathy, won’t sway anyone, for reasons I’m sure you can appreciate. They haven’t been peer reviewed, at least not by anyone willing to publish opposing results. I’d like to know whether the last two references were peer reviewed, and whether the results have been duplicated. I suspect not, since verification of homeopathic principles would pretty much invalidate the rest of chemistry and sub-atomic physics, and I think I would have heard about that. I can just see the headlines: “Science wrong all along - physicists burn all journals published in the last 100 years and start over. Fields of logic and philosophy also demolished - page B17”.

I’m being a little sarcastic there, but really, it’s no exaggeration, this is what would happen if homeopathy’s “law of infinitessimals” were verified.

[Tom_Bozzuto]

Originally posted by CurtC:
Tom,
I’m glad you’re here. Your posts are polite and on-topic. Here’s a tip for quoting: put the quoted text inside {quote} and {/quote} markers, except use square brackets instead of curly braces (I couldn’t do it here else it would quote the word “and”).

Thanks Curt. I’ve been learning the hard way.

I’ve been waiting for the scientific results you mentioned. I have to say that the first few, which are all papers published in journals of homeopathy, won’t sway anyone, for reasons I’m sure you can appreciate. They haven’t been peer reviewed, at least not by anyone willing to publish opposing results.

Look at my rather long posting on page 3. References are from Lancet, NY Academy of Sciences, Vet & Human Toxicology, British Medical Journal, and Journal of Head Trauma and Rehabilitation (all peer reviewed). I subscribe to the British and American Journals of Homeopathy; they have editorial boards who review submissions, but I agree that they would not be of interest for publication by anyone trying to refute homeopathy.

I’d like to know whether the last two references were peer reviewed, and whether the results have been duplicated.

The next to last is from a French Journal of Nuclear Medicine, and the last from Eurpoean Journal of Pharmacology. I suspect that they are peer reviewed, but can’t say for sure.

I suspect not, since verification of homeopathic principles would pretty much invalidate the rest of chemistry and sub-atomic physics, and I think I would have heard about that. I can just see the headlines: “Science wrong all along - physicists burn all journals published in the last 100 years and start over. Fields of logic and philosophy also demolished - page B17”. I’m being a little sarcastic there, but really, it’s no exaggeration, this is what would happen if homeopathy’s “law of infinitessimals” were verified.

Your sarcasm is shared by the editor of Lancet (see page 3 posting), who made the comment that either Reilly’s studies proved homeopathy is not placebo, or his rather elegant studies proved that the clinical trial is invalid in research. It does cause us to challenge our reductionist views that have prevailed for so long in medicine. That’s all I’m trying to get people to think about by joining this discussion.

Tom

[system]

Dr. Bozzuto,

Just a couple of words about the first set of studies that you posted. I happened to find this little nugget concerning the Endler, et al. Tadpole papers from CSICOP

Seems as though when the researchers placed the homeopathic remedy in a sealed tube simply in the presence of the tadpoles, they elicited the same increase in climbing rate as when they treated the tadpoles directly. Instead of coming to the common sense conclusion that the control experiment demonstrated that the homeopathic solution had no effect on the climbing rate, they postulated that there must be some sort of “radiant effect”. In other words, invisible homeopathic “rays”.

Another interesting point in the article noted that Jacques Benveniste seems to think that the “memory” of water is erased by a magnetic field. Guess that sort of shoots down the whole idea of using NMR to study homeopathic solutions since the sample is subjected to a pretty heavy magnetic field in order to get a reading.

As for the widely cited Kleijnen, et al. meta analysis, This Paper seems to have found a different conclusion from the meta analysis:

A 1991 meta-analysis of homeopathy in human medicine concluded, “At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.”

(Some of this quote was deleted. Sorry, we can’t allow copyrighted stuff to be quoted at length on this board. Please just summarize and include links. Thanks - Jill)

-From "HOMEOPATHY AND SCIENCE: A CLOSER LOOK, David W. Ramey, DVM, Mahlon Wagner, PhD, Robert H. Imrie, DVM, Victor Stenger, PhD

[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]

[jkeller]

Dr. Bozzuto,

Another quick note:

As for the NMR studies, I’m curious, is there a mistake with the (J Med Nucl Bioly 1992;16(2):135) cite? I can’t seem to find a journal with the abbreviation J Med Nucl Bioly or J Med Nucl Biol. I know that there is a Nucl Med Biol and an Int J Nucl Med Biol. Since you have presumably read the paper and most likely have it, maybe you could give a pointer as to who publishes it and the correct abbreviation.

Jon

[Tom_Bozzuto]

Originally posted by jkeller:
**Dr. Bozzuto,

Another quick note:

As for the NMR studies, I’m curious, is there a mistake with the (J Med Nucl Bioly 1992;16(2):135) cite? I can’t seem to find a journal with the abbreviation J Med Nucl Bioly or J Med Nucl Biol. I know that there is a Nucl Med Biol and an Int J Nucl Med Biol. Since you have presumably read the paper and most likely have it, maybe you could give a pointer as to who publishes it and the correct abbreviation.

Jon**

The journal is a French language journal published out of Paris. I read an english translation, but do not have the original article.

Tom

[fyslee]

Originally posted by Tom Bozzuto:
**JAMA published an article stating that only 15% of what physicians do in clinical practice is based on sound clinical medicine (so if you want to go to a doctor who wings it 85% of the time, be my guest). British Medical Journal states that of conventional medica research, only 1% of what’s published in journals has really proven the hypothesis by their study design and conclusions.
quote:

Do you know that one of the quackwatch docs was prohibited from being an expert witness in a case because he was determined to have no knowledge or training in the field he was criticizing?

Name names and case, please. I’m not just going to take your word for it. And have no doubt, I will contact the person you’ve accused and others who are knowledgeable in that area, so don’t try to pull any BS.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to name a physician who’s not involved in this discussion in this public forum. If you want, I can send to your personal e-mail.
**

Tom, can you give us the JAMA and BMJ citations?

As far as naming the doctor’s name, I doubt that you’d cause any trouble. But you’re welcome to send it to me privately. Also give me an idea of the setting in which it occurred.

Paul Lee, PT
Denmark

E-mail: healthbase@post.tele.dk
The Quack-Files: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase

[Tom_Bozzuto]

[quote]
Originally posted by jkeller:
**Dr. Bozzuto,

Just a couple of words about the first set of studies that you posted. I happened to find this little nugget concerning the Endler, et al. Tadpole papers from CSICOP

[quote}Seems as though when the researchers placed the homeopathic remedy in a sealed tube simply in the presence of the tadpoles, they elicited the same increase in climbing rate as when they treated the tadpoles directly. Instead of coming to the common sense conclusion that the control experiment demonstrated that the homeopathic solution had no effect on the climbing rate, they postulated that there must be some sort of “radiant effect”. In other words, invisible homeopathic “rays”.[/quote]

What the folks on that website (another quackwatch site) failed to mention is that the control was actually no homeopathic remedy. The remedy in the bottle and the remedy in the solution both had effect in climbing rate where the blank control had none.

here’s another studie done in non-homeopathic journals on animals:

Cazin J, Cazin M, Gaborit JL, et al. A study of the effect of decimal and centesimal dilutions of arsenic on the retention and mobilization of arsenic in the rat. Human Toxicology 1987;6:315-320.

Another interesting point in the article noted that Jacques Benveniste seems to think that the “memory” of water is erased by a magnetic field. Guess that sort of shoots down the whole idea of using NMR to study homeopathic solutions since the sample is subjected to a pretty heavy magnetic field in order to get a reading.

Thats the nice thing about real scientists. They don’t let what they think get in the way of their experimental results.

As for the widely cited Kleijnen, et al. meta analysis, This Paper seems to have found a different conclusion from the meta analysis:

**

That conclusion is not from the Kleijen paper, but from the authors of the book you quoted. I read the original meta-analysis.

Tom

[Tom_Bozzuto]

Originally posted by fyslee:
Tom, can you give us the JAMA and BMJ citations?
Paul Lee, PT
Denmark

Paul:

The JAMA citation about only 15 % of conventional medical practices being based on scientific evidence is:

JAMA 1993;269(23):3030-3033.

The BMJ article about 1% of articles in medical journals being scientifically sound is:

BMJ 1991;303:798-799.

Tom