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
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
Let me give some background on why I find homeopathy to be a fraud. Whenever someone tries to explain “How homeopathic water isn’t just plain water”, they tend to twist the truth and litter their arguments with half-lies. Here are Dr. Bozzuto’s attempts at explaining how homeopathy works and here are some of the reality twisting techniques that I could pick out.
One of Dr. Bozzuto’s first assertions here was that:
This is false and if you have graduate chemistry training, you should know it (if you don’t know it, I’d ask for my money back from the institution that granted your degree). If that were the case, then three quarters of the argument against homeopathy would be declared null and void. It is true that most chemists and physicists agree that a solvent “can take a particular orientation depending on a substance that they have been placed in contact with”, however, as far as I know, the rest is bunk to “most chemists and physicists”.
When Dr. Bozzuto declared in a later post, “That’s how water does it!”, he didn’t explain how water does it, but rather, cited some homeopathy journals and an obscure journal from France that apparently no one catalogs and he doesn’t own. These were articles that supposedly claimed to show a difference in NMR signals of the solvent (two of them happen to be from the mid 60’s, the relative infancy of NMR). Admit it, Dr. Bozzuto, there is no good evidence to support any of the theories about water forming ordered structures due to dilution/succussion. At least admit that the evidence that you presented (re: NMR validation of homeopathy) is lacking, at best.
Dr, Bozzuto’s article in the Jacksonville Medicine journal relied on physics journal articles by Dr. Shui-Yin Lo. When referencing the good doctor’s papers, He makes the claim that
Unfortunately for Drs. Lo and Bozzuto, no one can replicate Dr. Lo’s findings, and as a matter of fact, Dr. Lo is implicated in the old “Laudry Ball” scam in connection with his IE theories. Lo is intimately involved with ATG, a company that appears to rely on scam “scientific breakthroughs” to sell products via MLM. So, now we can say that there has not been a “discovery of IE structures in water” because if it can’t be replicated, then it isn’t a scientific “discovery”. Hmmm, it appears that Jacksonville Medicine published a paper that argued for homeopathy (among other things) using seriously flawed science from a highly questionable source. But then again, it’s easy to cite articles that come from outside the scope of the journal and not have anyone notice.
To summarize, we can say that the theoretical underpinnings (presented thus far) that Dr. Bozzuto claims support homeopathy (i.e. NMR and IE structures) are currently non-existent. We can also say that you stretched the truth at least a little bit when you made the assertion in Jacksonville Medicine, “Therefore, when viewed in the light of quantum physics and plasma chemistry, the mechanism of homeopathic remedies is not unplausible.” At least we can say that maybe Dr. Bozzuto didn’t know the whole story when he made that assertion.
BTW, it appears that Dr. Bozzuto made no currently accepted “quantum physics” or “plasma chemistry” arguments in support of his “theory of how homeopathy works”. These terms are often used by hucksters and snake-oil salesmen to give their products an air of “scientific-ness”. Unless he wants to cast his lot with the common huckster that oversells his MLM scheme, he might reconsider the use of these terms unless he actually puts forth a solid “quantum physics” or “plasma chemistry” argument.
The “science of homeopathy” is not that different from “creation science” in this sense: There is a central hypothesis or theory that cannot be altered (it is taken on faith) and the “researchers” will do anything to fit the data to the hypothesis.
JK
PS–for anyone interested, the articles posted by Dr. Bozzutto (and much of the same commentary that looks to be cut and pasted without attribution) can be found here."]http://www.healthy.net/nch/]here. Just click on “research” and choose the type of study you would like to see. I like it when I can see what’s coming next. This site gives the cliffs notes version of each selected study for those who want to defend it.
PPS-the claim that Bueniviste is one of those scientists that “don’t let what they think get in the way of their experimental results” is a laugh. Guess he is also one of those very common homeopathy researchers that is lionized for research that only he can replicate.
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:
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).” Tom replied:
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.
I had said:“So you’re saying homeopathy is really the placebo effect? This should suprise nobody.” Tom replied:
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?” Tom responded:
Then set me straight. I notice you didn’t answer my question.
Tom said:
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.
Thanks to anybody who can let me know if he answered any of these.
From Tom’s article for Jacksonville Medicine:
I trust you’ll be back in a couple of weeks after Cecil’s column debunking acupuncture is published?
And just what the HELL is this alleged “vital force” you referred to? Or “bioenergetic integrity”? If these two things don’t truly exist, then homeopathy proceeds from a false assumption.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
Let’s take a moment here for a bit of housekeeping – and a request from your moderators.
Anything that kicks the line length over what we have set (like urls) makes the topic difficult for people to read; they have to scroll back and forth and it’s irritating.
In most cases, if you use the url command like so: (curly brackets to show the coding; replace with straight ones)
{url=www.straightdope.com}The Straight Dope{/url}
produces THIS: The Straight Dope
You can title the url whatever you like, you don’t have to copy the entire url address.
Also, just glancing at the thread, there’s a lot of needless quoting here. Quote when you need, but if you edit to the parts most meaningful, it’s a better experience for everybody.
We now return you to your thread. Thanks!
your humble TubaDiva
Adminstrator
The Straight Dope
(filling in for Jillgat)
All I have been trying to say, guys and gals, is to ask you to open your minds to the fact that there is some evidence that homeopathy MAY be plausible.
I am suspicious about someone who finds fault in EVERY article (about homeopathy) but takes by faith everything published by conventional medicine!
In my 20 years of medicine, I have met some folks who tell me that they don’t THINK some scientific information is correct or plausible. When shown the information, they reconsider or entertain the notion that they learned something–these people are skeptics.
There are also people who I have met who tell me they don’t BELIEVE the scientific information is correct or plausible. When shown the information, they find every reason to condemn every word or notion in the information and say they still don’t BELIEVE. These people are fanatics.
I find it hard to fathom that you all can’t entertain even one notion that papers that have made it into the British Medical Journal, Lancet, JAMA, Human Toxicology, NY Academy of Sciences, etc., may have some merit. I feel sorry for you. I don’t imagine that being a professional skeptic is either personally satisfying or pleasant (other than seeing how well you can make other people squirm). The similarity between a professional skeptic and pessimist is that they are never disappointed.
You all go ahead and debate…I’ll go back to treating patients. (BTW–only about 15% of my practice is homeopathy --for those of you who care.)
I’m sure I’ll catch some flack for this posting, too. BUT what the hell, I won’t be reading it anymore.
Adios,
Tom
There’s an old saying in science - “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If you neighbor tells you that his in-laws from Indiana are at his house, you’ll take it on faith. If he instead says that visitors from a planet in the Alpha Centauri system are at his house, you’d need to see damn good proof.
You’ve basically posted references to papers that say you have Alpha Centauri visitors, and we point out that the papers have been ripped to shreds by the peer review process. No, we don’t believe them.Yes, we hold these to a different standard than papers that cover more mundane subjects.
But you should realize that you are proposing that we belive in magic, with very poor evidence presented. Sorry, that don’t cut it.
You’re exactly correct!
Not exactly. These papers all passed the peer review process that allowed them to be published in their respective journals. They were later torn apart by people who don’t belive that there is any way homeopathy works.
jkeller seems to think that the reason that some of them can’t be believed is merely the fact that they are published in homeopathy journals or in a journal he can’t find. It rare that cardiology papers are published in an orthopedic journal, but somehow not acceptable that homeopathic articles are published in a homeopathic journal.
The difficulty that the conventional community has had with ALL alternative medicine is that because it is popular with the public, it is being given a free ride. The one of the JAMA editors recently wrote that it’s time for the free ride to stop and for alternative medicine to be held under the same scrutiny as conventional medicine. I’m all for that. What has really happened is exactly what you mention. Alternative medicine is held to a higher standard than conventional. This trend disturbs me. Two examples. There is no evidence in the cardiovascular literature that bypassing more than one vessel prolongs life or reduces morbidity or mortality. Ask anyone you know who has bypass how many vessels they have had done. There is also no evidence in the cardiology literature that placing a stent during PTCA reduces morbidity or mortality, yet stenting has become commonplace during this procedure.
Once we become complacent with the mundane, we become less critical. Then critique becomes sloppy.
I don’t want to give the impression that because I believe that homeopathy works, that I am totally uncritical of all alternative medicine. In my office, I am bombarded almost daily by the continuous stream of phone calls, literature and tapes of MLM’s and wild snake-oil schemes. I really don’t criticize your earnestness, and I really don’t know if you would have to practice medicine and see the types of people I do that feel that conventional medicine has failed them to understand where I’m coming from.
I will quit practicing medicine the day I don’t see any magic in what I do!
Tom
Tom said:
So I guess the answer to my previous post is, “No, Tom hasn’t answered any of those questions…and apparently has no intention of doing so.”
I’m still wondering what “bioenergetic integrity” is.
Tom Bozzuto said:
I think you’re equivocating here - mixing uses of the word magic.
I meant to say thanks to Jill or Tuba or whomever cleaned up the thread.
If you study chiropractic, you’ll find that “vitalism” is also it’s metaphysical basis, just as with homeopathy. Check out Chirobase http://www.chirobase.org for more info. The National Association for Chiropractic Medicine site is also very interesting http://www.chiromed.org .
If you think this discussion of homeopathy has been interesting, the message board will absolutely glow, if Cecil should decide to take on chiropractic. He’d better use a kevlar vest if he tries! Talk about money and power! Scientology and chiropractic have a similar combination of belief coupled with money and politics.
Paul Lee, PT
Poor, poor Dr. Bozzuto.
He seems to think that anyone who dares shine a light on the homeopathic deception is a “fanatic”. However, if you first disagree, and then take all his evidence at face value, then you have earned the title, “Good and True Skeptic”. Why am I reminded of all those Art Bell guests who say, “Well, I come at this alien abduction phenomenon as a skeptic, so at first I didn’t believe…”
He can’t seem to see how it grates on a REAL scientist when he explains the underlying theory of homeopathy with metaphysical concepts such as vitalism along side bunk theories about magical water structures interacting with such things as “receptor sites or energetic systems”. This is all spouted with a good dose of phrases such as “quantum physics” and “plasma chemistry”. He seems to think that those are the only catch phrases one needs to gain an air of credibility. That may be so for those that don’t know chemistry or physics, but it’s going to take a bit more for those that understand the basic rub between homeopathy and the known laws of physics. Unfortunately, we are not his target audience.
He seems to have missed my reference to the NMR studies in homeopathy journals. Remember when I said that two of them were from the relative infancy of NMR? I wonder if he knows how revolutionary those would have been if published in, say, JACS, Science or Nature? When a technology is “young” in chemistry, and especially if it is an exciting technology, you can get anything published. This is doubly applicable if the new technology seems to turn a previous theory on its head. So take that self-pitying argument about homeopathic articles in homeopathic journals and get it out of here. The fact of the matter is that those were not homeopathy articles, they were more important as chemistry and physics projects and any scientist worth his/her salt would have recognized that. I have to wonder why those projects were never submitted to journals were they would have made a difference? Hmmm….
BTW, I challenge anyone to track down that “J Med Nucl Bioly” reference and see if you can find it within 30 minutes or so (I spent a couple of hours on savvysearch, altavista, google, Pubmed and Library of Congress. I normally can track down a journal in little more than 15 minutes, no matter what the language. This one either slipped under my radar or someone sent us all on a wild goose chase with a bogus reference). As far as I can tell there are no journals with that abbreviation. Furthermore, none of the journals that could have the abbreviation would have that volume number in 1992. I would like to know where I could find the journal-I didn’t think it would have been that hard for someone who seems to rely heavily on that article to remember the name of the journal, at least.
I am more suspicious of anyone who uses phony references and shady science references that he/she apparently doesn’t read. Take the Dr. Shui-Yin Lo references in the Jacksonville Medicine article. You forgot to mention that those articles had nothing to do with homeopathy, dilutions or any compounds in solution. You forgot to mention that this was supposedly done by running current through purified water. You forgot to mention, also, that your attempt at tying in that article with homeopathy was little more than wishful thinking. Oh yeah, you also forgot to mention where the “quantum physics” and “plasma chemistry” came from…
It’s really too bad that so many people do resort to so much alt.health bunk. You would think that us humans are in the worst shape we have ever been. You would think that people commonly lived to 150yrs old before the advent of science, which went and fouled everything up. You would think that every witch doctor and Far Eastern shaman and guru that purported to have an “ancient remedy” were all keeping their “patients” alive for 200 years. I can only hope that most of those who use it are only losing a bit of money. I can’t bear the thought of someone putting off real medical help for serious conditions or those that get their life savings raided by crooks who claim that they can cure their medically incurable cancer.
[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]
(I just fixed some UBB coding for JKeller above. That’s why it says "Edited by JillGat)
Lets assume (I say assume, NOT admit) Mr. Keller (I’m also assuming it IS Mr) that the NMR studies are flawed. Lets assume that the animal studies leave something to be desired. Lets ignore anything published in a homeopathic journal.
Lets assume we have NO WAY of measuring any biological, chemical, or physical activity of a homeopathic dilution. OK?
NOW, I challenge anyone to find enough fault with Reilly’s studies in Lancet, which were not only elegantly performed (with reliable p values) but acknowledged to be so by the editor and review staff of one of the oldest peer reviewed medical journals, to prove to me that there is no effect of homeopathy beyond that of placebo.
Lets stop the personal mudslinging. I have heard a lot of opinions by people who won’t even list their occupations or credentials.
The gold standard of medicine has always been the double-blinded clinical trial. If the studies show what they were intended to show, then there IS an effect of homeopathy despite the fact that its mechanism is (as of yet) undiscovered.
Entertain the thought that our measuring equipment is not sophiscitated enough. There were galaxies before telescopes were invented. There was electrical activity in the brain and heart before EKG’s and EEG’s were invented, and microorganisms before the microscope. Can anyone prove to me (with scientific criticism of the articles, not slander of the therapeutic system) that these studies do not prove an EFFECT on humans, beyond placebo.
Address the study please, not the peripheral.
Tom
Hmmm. Interesting. I thought Tom was leaving. Yet he came back to complain that people aren’t addressing the thing he wants addressed. Funny, I’m still waiting for his answers to my questions, posted several times now…
Gee Dave:
I was so caught up in having my intelligence, training, and sanity questioned and having been quoted saying some pretty nasty things (that never occurred in my personal e-mail to you)that (even though I looked through the past 2 pages) I’m having a hard time figuring out what exactly your questions were.
I have a question totally unrealted to the homeopathy thread that I hope you can answer. In my 24 years in medicine and 2 in graduate training, I have been involved in numerous scientific ‘forums’. My understanding of them is that although scientists may wildly differ in their beliefs or interpretation of data, they treat people presenting opposing views with collegial respect.I have rarely been involved in one where the discussant of a particular topic was personally attacked. Does that somehow make the critiquers more correct?
I thought I was leaving too. Something about this discussion thread continues to interest me. Does that make my position more unplausible, too?
Tom
More homeopathic musings found in my old e-mails to the Healthfraud Discussion List:
Homeopathic Beer!
Homeopathic beer…ultra lite! It just might work…a placebo high. But what would they do in court, when you get charged with driving “under the influence”, maybe even causing an accident, without anything more than “homeopathic alcohol” (water) in your blood? You were, after all, “under the influence”! I know it sounds like a joke, but it could actually happen.
Kind’a reminds me of the “good old days” in the 60’s & 70’s, when a lot of us wasted a lot of time getting stoned. There was/is a phenomenon we called a “contact high”. Even if you didn’t smoke any dope, you’d still get stoned, just by being in contact with those that were. A learned way of thinking and acting (the largest part of being stoned, the chemical part just strengthening it) got started by the social atmosphere. You’d still end up acting just as silly.
So, who wants to do an experiment with homeopathic (placebo) beer? How much is coordination, judgment, etc. affected by the belief that there is alcohol present, coupled with the expectation of a good time?
The following is an interesting response I got to the above (the author’s name is left out for obvious reasons!):
"I must confess that when in the university and studying clinical psychology I did a great deal of work on “suggestion.” As a result, I did get a lot of people “drunk” on drinks that contained no liquor. One of my tricks was to mix a very strong drink, with fruit juice and grain alcohol, in front of my “subject.” Then I would let the subject taste the real thing (the alcohol is virtually tasteless when prepared properly, just as is vodka) and prepare a second drink for the subject but would not put any alcohol in that drink; however, I would rub the rim of the glass with some alcohol so that the odor and a very slight taste was reassuringly there.
"Invariably my subject would get as drunk as could be and put on a “drunk act” that would convince anyone they were very, very inebriated. Apparently the “excuse to become uninhibited” was all that most require as it was always very effective and it never failed me.
"Once, much earlier when I was only eighteen and in the Navy, and while preparing to go on a double date with a friend, I had told a story of “placebo drunks” prior to our dates and he had demanded a demonstration. I did as described above, making us all great, large, “planter’s punch” drinks. Our dates were sisters and, later in the evening, I was startled that my date (who had drank the fake drink) had become so “drunk” that she was out of control and kept attempting to take her clothes off and insisting that I “take her.” My friend and I were laughing so much that her sister was sure we were out of our minds, especially as she was fearful that I would be “taking advantage” of her “drunken” sister’s suggestive endeavors. Because I remained a gentleman (I couldn’t take advantage of a lady who was not in control of her faculties) my buddy never questioned my ethical standards and my girl friend was later very apologetic about “getting drunk and losing control,” as she had never had that reaction to a drink before…
"It was the last time that I performed the experiment on a lady but guys kept being good subjects and some even had the same “fighting drunk” behavior as they did when imbibing real alcohol! When others were “in” on the experiment it was very entertaining (but doubtful ethics)… And it always demonstrated the great power of suggestion or placebo effect. Unfortunately, I also was tempted to perform a few experiments where I used the “nocebo” effect and made subjects ill by suggestion. The stimulation of nausea and vomiting by suggestion is extremely simple and is usually very effective, even if it is not nice. I think that I have previously mentioned the production of a “hives” or “strawberry rash” reaction in one subject that was produced, every time, by a discussion of “very bloody war stories” in front of the subject. Each time his eyes and lips would swell and he would itch and
have typical skin reactions. A dose of sodium gluconate would reduce the symptoms almost instantly… We decided in consultation that it was a “fear induced hives reaction” brought about by hearing those stories. He never caught on that we had precipitated the attacks and was always grateful that we could “cure” him with the medication afterward…
“So much for placebo drug effects…” End Quote.
While we’re talking about homeopathy, the placebo effect - for some strange reason (!) - keeps coming up. How about us all batting the subject of the placebo effect around for a while? This thread would be a good place to do it, since that’s what we’re talking about anyway. Who’s interested? I have a few things to say…
Paul Lee, PT
The Quack-Files - http://www.geocities.com/healthbase
Dr. Bozzuto
I’m wondering, if by questioning the veracity of your references (and your interpretation of their findings and significance) as well as the underlying theory of homeopathy, that constitutes a personal attack. I understand that I may have gone over the top a bit with my last post, however, it is not particularly good science to expect one to take you at your word that a paper said what you claim it said. I was simply in a more sarcastic mood than normal when I read a post that seemed to say that since we wouldn’t play by your rules, you would just go home. Just for your info, I am a research chemist and I rely very heavily on the chemical and general science literature and I keep up with it pretty religiously. As I said before, I am pretty handy with the computer when it comes to tracking down scientific sources-it’s my job. One of my hobbies, as you may have figured, is learning about scientific self-delusion (or in more severe cases, fraud) and I recently (within a couple years) sort of ran into this wide open area of quackery, where this stuff runs rampant.
I don’t think it is all that important to know everyone’s credentials up-front (it is, however, interesting, sometimes), you know, all those logical fallacy thingies such as appeal to authority. I think it is more important to address the specific ideas that are currently on the plate. In addition, I really have no desire to be looked up by every Tom, Dick or Harry that has scraped enough pennies together to by a computer. I have found in the past that in an atmosphere such as this, some people are pretty tenacious at finding out who you are and then trying to scare you with the info, especially if your argument strikes at a core belief of that person. I’m not saying that is you Dr. Bozzuto, I just have no urge to have my family, employer or poker club involved in any discussion I have here. These are sensitive issues, a lot of time, and people can get pretty emotional and do pretty radical things.
As for your insistence on debating a single paper, I find that inappropriate for a discussion of homeopathy. I haven’t taken the time to get that article yet, but if the editor did say that it might call in to question the validity of double blind studies, then I say the editor needs to take a refresher course in statistics. Statistical significance in medicine is achieved when the probability is 95% that there is a correlation between those things studied. This means that we can expect that 1 in 20 studies that show significance are actually false positives. No matter how good we think the study is, there is always that 5% chance that a finding is totally misleading. Now some other areas of science are a bit more rigorous. Therefore, in medicine, before things can be taken as “fact”, there must be a at least a logical foundation or a large body of work that is pretty unequivocal. I don’t believe homeopathy has either. Therefore, a single paper is just that, a single paper that is quite a curiosity.
The point that I am making here is that studies of homeopathy mean very little without a sound, logical theoretical base from which to work. You point out a few areas in “conventional” medicine that aren’t supported by sound clinical trials, but forget to mention that there is a sound logical base for many of those practices, something that is {b]conspicuously missing** in homeopathy. You may refer to it as a “Law of Similars”, but this is no scientific law in the sense of Newton’s Law’s of Motion. It is a tenet of faith, and therefore, that is why I say that the “science of homeopathy” is very much like “creation science”.
Jon