I have just re-read “Homeopathic Science and Modern Medicine: The Physics of Healing with Microdoses,” by Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D. (Berkeley, North Atlantic Books, 1980). (The book is available online from minimum.com) Anyone with a serious interest in how and whether homeopathy works, and the science that lies behind it, owes it to himself/herself to read this short, inexpensive, well-documented, and erudite book. Coulter compares homeopathy and orthodox medicine in a number of areas, pointing out how orthodox medicine uses homeopathic principles in many situations. There is also a 15-page appendix entitled “The Question of Clinical Trials in Homeopathy and Allopathy.”
The book mentions numerous studies, conducted over many years and by many differednt researchers, showing the effects of homeopathic preparations (1)on the fermentation of starch by salivary amylase (2)on plants (including wheat sprouts) and (3)on animals (including paramecia), using distilled water as a control. There are also references to studies showing clear differences between distilled water and homeopathic preparations (1) when the dielectric constant was measured, (2)using magnetic resonance techniques.
“Allopathic medicine should not be amazed at the homoeopathic small doses, since the power of minute quantities is recognized today outside homoeopathy as well as inside it. A milligram of acetylcholine dissolved in 500,000 gallons of blood can lower the blood pressure of a cat; even samller amounts will affect the beat of a frog’s heart.”(“Science” 72 (1930), 526.)
“Florey reported in 1943 that pure penicillin will inhibit the development of sensitive microorganisms in vitro at dilutions of 1:50,000,000 to 1:100,000,000; morphological effects on streptococci were seen at dilutions of 1:250,000,000. (Alexander Fleming, “Chemotherapy Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow” [Cambridge University Press, 1946], 26.) Fleming noted that diluting penicillin 80,000,000 times was like taking one drop of water and dividing it among 6000 whiskey bottles. . . . The human body manufactures 50-100 millionths of a gram of thyroid hormone per day and the concentration of free thyroid hormone in the normal blood is one part per 10,000 million parts of blood plasma.” (Starling and Lovatt Evans, "Principles of Human Physiology, 14th edition [London, J. & A. Churchill, 1968],1493-4.)
All quotes from Harris L. Coulter, “Homoeopathic Science and Modern Medicine,” (Berkeley, North Atlantic Books, 1980) p.53.
I have no doubt that a homeopathic solution might affect things like starch or paramecia or wheat sprouts, and probably you could prove using MRI that a homeopathic solution was different from distilled water.
But how do you extrapolate from changing starch to curing illness? Just because a homeopathic solution is “different” from distilled water or makes paramecia wiggle the opposite direction doesn’t prove it’s going to cure anything. Sorry, I don’t see the connection.
The earlier discussion was largely about whether there was any difference between homeopathic preparations and sugar pills. A lot of posters claimed that the high dilutions used in homeopathy meant that they were simply placebos.
I was addressing that argument.
As to curing illness, there are two hundred years’ worth of doctor and patient reports available in a huge number of books from many different countries that attest to homeopathy’s ability to do that. It is not 100 per cent effective, owing to the difficulty of finding the correct remedy, the obstacles to cure present in any given case (coffee and camphor will antidote the remedies, other lifestyle choices may favor illness), and the progress of the disease (some people are so weakened that they are beyond recovery).
“The homoeopathic method made its first pronounced impact on American and European thought during the cholera epidemic of 1832 when, by the accounts of all observers, the homoeopaths had a far higher recovery rate than the regular physicians (in Paris, for example, during this epidemic, the price of the homoeopathic medicine for cholera increased 100-fold). Other epidemic diseases in which homoeopathic practitioners distinguished themselves were scarlet fever, dysentery, meningitis, and yellow fever. The nineteenth century homoeopathic records are full of cases of the successful treatment of these diseases. Homoeopaths were particularly successful in the illnesses of children. Furthermore, the typical homoeopathic physician of those days was a small-town practitioner who spent his whole life with a relatively unchanging group of families for whom he was the only doctor. Is it to be seriously contemplated that he made his reputation and kept his patients decade after decade, treating successfully all the diseases of infants and farm animals as well as those of his normal clientele, merely by power of suggestion?” (Coulter, op. cit., pp.5-6.)
Yes, highly diluted substances can have an effect-- as long as there’s still some of the substance left. The lowest concentration of any of the substances listed in Marlene’s post is thyroid hormone, at one part in 10[sup]10[/sup]. I can’t do the full calculation, as I don’t know the molar mass of thyroid hormone, but at a rough estimate, that’s still several thousand molecules of hormone per cubic centimeter. By contrast, many homeopathic preparations work out to be equivalent to one molecule in all of the oceans of the world, or even more dilute, which would mean that any given dose of homeopathic preparation is overwhelmingly like to not contain a single molecule. There’s a big difference between a substance containing one molecule of something and containing zero molecules.
Eh, reading Marlene’s quote from Coulter, with all of the references to 19th century doctors using “homeopathic” remedies, I’m starting to get the feeling that maybe Coulter isn’t using the word “homeopathic” to mean what it means today, but rather more like “alternative” or “herbal” medicine. I have no doubt that many 19th century physicians treated illnesses like cholera, dysentery, yellow fever, and meningitis with anything they could get their hands on, just out of sheer desperation. Some of those remedies may have included herbal things similar to what we today call “homeopathic”. But my question is, would those herbal remedies have existed in the extremely dilute forms that today’s homeopathic medicine calls for? Does Coulter give any recipes or prescriptions, with actual amounts, or is it just all vague generalizations?
BTW, I’m no medical historian, and even I know that the medical establishment was totally stumped during the 19th century as to what exactly was the cause, and cure, for these diseases. Opinions varied widely as to what was the best approach. If there really were a miracle cure known as “homeopathy”, why do none of the accounts of the great epidemics mention it?
And if somebody says, “Oh, well, that’s because of this big conspiracy on the part of the medical establishment,” then That Person is going to lose what little credibility he or she has with me right now, OK? Don’t tell me that.
Coulter is, in fact a medical historian, a graduate of Yale who got his Ph.D from Columbia. His dissertation was about the political and social aspects of 19th century medicine in the U.S.
Homeopathy meant then what it means now–the use of the most similar substance, diluted and succussed (shaken) to a particular potency, the minimum dose, the remedy chosen on the basis of the totality of the patient’s symptoms, not on the name of a disease. In the U.S., at the turn of the century,there were 18 homoeopathic medical schools, “at least one hundred homoeopathic hospitals, and more than one thousand pharmacies carrying homoeopathic remedies. During this time between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the practicing physicians in urban areas considered themselves homoeopaths.” --Dana Ullman, from the Foreword to the New Edition of “Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy” by James Tyler Kent, M.D. (originally published in 1900–new edition by North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA 1979) p. i.
The people doing homoeopathy in those days (and doing it well) were not confusing it with herbalism or anything else. It was then, and remains, a rigorous science, as well as a difficult art to master. These books are very interesting and worth a read.
It was to Chronos’s argument that I directed my first post yesterday, quoting Coulter on the various scientific studies showing that even in solutions containing not one molecule of the “solute,” there are still measurable differences between the solvent and distilled water. You owe it to youself to pick up a copy of Coulter and read the whole 170 pages.
Just curious: what particular potion does homeopathy recommend I drink to make my trick ankle get better? (it did it again to me this morning, it’s getting very annoying, I’ll try anything)
A homeopath would not prescribe for your trick ankle alone. He/she would take your whole case, including mental and emotional symptoms, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, head, chest, etc. He/she would get a detailed medical history of your whole life, would ask about your parents and other family members, would ask about what makes you feel better and worse, would ask about food cravings and aversions, sleep positions, time of waking, any insomnia, etc.
After having the whole picture, “the totality of the symptoms,” the homeopath would choose your “potion.” Your ankle might not be the first thing to improve.
Typically, when a person has joint problems (assuming there was no injury in the past) it’s a sign that a more superficial ailment, usually a skin condition, has been suppressed. If the joint condition is then suppressed, the illness goes deeper, and a year or a few years later, the patient goes to another doctor with heart problems. The cardiologist pays no attention to the history of suppressed eczema, for example, and also ignores the earlier joint pain. The patient now gets heroic measures for the heart condition, or dies. Homeopathic treatment would address the most serious condition first. If your trick ankle IS your most serious condition, a homeopath would be happy to see a skin eruption accompany the improvement in your ankle. That would be the correct direction of cure. (A skin eruption is not a necessity, of course, especially if you have had no skin problems in the past).
If you give me your location, I will give you the names and phone numbers of some homeopaths in your area.
The following is copied from Dr. Robert Imrie, DVM, who has done a great job of compiling this information:
“Lest there be any doubt about the scientific evidence for and against
the efficacy of homeopathy, here is an overview of the literature. Much
of the following research was conducted by practitioners and staunch
proponents of homeopathy.”
Homeopathy Abstracts (Medline):
GENERAL
“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
“There is a lack of independent replication of any pre-clinical research in
homoeopathy. In the few instances where a research team has set out to
replicate the work of another, either the results were negative or the
methodology was questionable.” Forsch Komplementarmed 1999
Dec;6(6):311-320 [Independent Replication of Pre-Clinical Research in
Homoeopathy: A Systematic Review]. [Article in German] Vickers AJ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10649002&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three
standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific
knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the
fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the
small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided
convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against
particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint,
homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the
principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for
the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of
operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a
scientific discipline.” Ann Ital Med Int 1999 Jul-Sep;14(3):172-84 [No
title available]. [Article in Italian] Federspil G, Vettor R http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10566183&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10391656&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“[…] we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is
clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.” Lancet 1997 Sep
20;350(9081):834-843 Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo
effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Linde K, Clausius N,
Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9310601&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“The therapeutic principles of homeopathy are based on insecure hypotheses
and on the patient’s information of improved behaviour. Thus, homeopathy
does not agree with the present natural science.” Z Arztl Fortbild (Jena)
1996 Apr;90(2):97-101 [Homeopathy from the viewpoint of the clinical
pharmacologist]. [Article in German] Haustein KO http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8686344&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=1603601&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
ARTHRITIS
“Forty-four patients with active Rheumatoid Arthritis were entered into a
6-month double-blind trial comparing homeopathy and placebo. […] There
was no statistically significant difference between groups.” Scand J
Rheumatol 1991;20(3):204-208 A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the
effectiveness of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis. Andrade LE, Ferraz MB,
Atra E, Castro A, Silva MS http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2068543&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
ASTHMA
“There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of
homeopathy in asthma.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000, Homeopathy for
chronic asthma. Linde K, Jobst K A
GASTROINTESTINAL MOTILITY
“This work does not confirm the role of either Opium or Raphanus in the
restoration of transit following abdominal surgery.” Chirurgie
1990;116(4-5):404-8 [Homeopathy for the restoration of transit after
abdominal surgery]. [Article in French] Fingerhut A http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2096041&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“It is concluded that the trial failed to demonstrate any effect of Opium
or Raphanus on the resumption of intestinal peristalsis after digestive
tract surgery. Nor did it confirm the activity of ultra-molecular dilutions
claimed for this type of drugs.” Presse Med 1989 Jan 21;18(2):59-62
[Evaluation of 2 homeopathic products on the resumption of transit after
digestive surgery. A multicenter controlled trial]. [Article in French] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2521722&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
PAIN - HEADACHE
"Both the homeopathy and placebo groups had reduction in attack frequency,
pain intensity and drug consumption, with a statistically non-significant
difference favouring homeopathy. " Br Homeopath J 2000 Jan;89(1):4-7
Homeopathic treatment of migraine: a double blind, placebo controlled trial
of 68 patients. Straumsheim P, Borchgrevink C, Mowinckel P, Kierulf H,
Hafslund O
“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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10584459&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9251877&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
PAIN - MUSCULOSKELETAL
“Homeopathic Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness following
long-distance running.” Clin J Pain 1998 Sep;14(3):227-31 Homeopathic
Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness after long-distance running:
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Vickers AJ, Fisher P,
Smith C, Wyllie SE, Rees R http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9758072&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“OBJECTIVE: To pilot a model for determining whether a homoeopathic
medicine is superior to placebo for delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS).
[…] CONCLUSION: The study did not find benefit of the homoeopathic
remedy in DOMS.” Br J Sports Med 1997 Dec;31(4):304-307 Homoeopathy for
delayed onset muscle soreness: a randomised double blind placebo controlled
trial. Vickers AJ, Fisher P, Smith C, Wyllie SE, Lewith GT http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9429007&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
PAIN - POST-SURGICAL
“OBJECTIVE–To examine whether homoeopathy has any effect on pain and other
inflammatory events after surgery. […] CONCLUSIONS–No positive evidence
was found for efficacy of homoeopathic treatment on pain and other
inflammatory events after an acute soft tissue and bone injury inflicted by
a surgical intervention.” BMJ 1995 Jun 3;310(6992):1439-1442 Effect of
homoeopathy on pain and other events after acute trauma: placebo controlled
trial with bilateral oral surgery Lokken P, Straumsheim PA, Tveiten D,
Skjelbred P, Borchgrevink CF. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=7613277&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
RESPRIATORY INFECTION
“Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of homeopathy in
influenza and influenza-like syndromes.” Cochrane Collaboration Abstract,
September 7, 1999: Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and
treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Vickers AJ, Smith C. http://www.update-software.com/abstracts/ab001957.htm
“CONCLUSION–Individually prescribed homoeopathic medicines seem to add
little to careful counselling of children with recurrent upper respiratory
tract infection in reducing the daily burden of symptoms, use of
antibiotics, and need for adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy.” BMJ 1994 Nov
19;309(6965):1329-32 Effect of homoeopathic medicines on daily burden of
symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. de
Lange de Klerk ES, Blommers J, Kuik DJ, Bezemer PD, Feenstra L. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=7866080&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
WARTS / POST-OPERATIVE OUTCOME
“CONCLUSIONS: Statements and methods of alternative medicine–as far as
they concern observable clinical phenomena–can be tested by scientific
methods. When such tests yield negative results, as in the studies
presented herein the particular method or statement should be abandoned.
Otherwise one would run the risk of supporting superstition and quackery.”
Arch Dermatol 1998 Nov;134(11):1368-70 A double-blind, controlled clinical
trial of homeopathy and an analysis of lunar phases and postoperative
outcome. Smolle J, Prause G, Kerl H. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9828870&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“CONCLUSION: There was no apparent difference between the effects of
homoeopathic therapy and placebo in children with common warts under the
conditions of this study.” Dermatology 1996;193(4):318-20 Homoeopathic
versus placebo therapy of children with warts on the hands: a randomized,
double-blind clinical trial. Kainz JT, Kozel G, Haidvogl M, Smolle J. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8993956&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
“CONCLUSION: 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=1596811&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
Ummm…I realize that you mean well, Marlene, but if it’s all the same, I think I’ll pass.
So what you’re saying is, my foot/ankle injury from last October is not healing right is because I must have some other condition that was being suppressed? Actually, I have at least two other chronic conditions that are in no way being suppressed, but blessed if I know how they’re connected to my ankle. Because I have these other two things, my ankle isn’t healing right? “Treat the whole person, not just the symptom”? Well, I can’t argue with that, but I don’t see how the fact that I hate “circus peanuts” would give him a pointer as to which potion to recommend.
And, you’re also saying that while my ankle was being treated, that might mean that something else could go wrong with my body, and this would be considered a Good Sign? I’m sorry but this is starting to sound like the old medieval doctrine of the humors, melancholic, choleric, etc., where they gave you calomel for things because it made you drool a lot, and that was considered a Good Sign. It showed that the “evil humors” were being driven out of your body. The fact that calomel was a poisonous mercury compound and that the drooling was your body’s desperate attempt to get rid of the toxin was beside the point.
Okay, now I went back and re-read your post in Preview Reply, and I realize you said, “Assuming there was no injury in the past.” Well, there WAS an injury, that’s the whole point. Are you saying that homeopathy can’t treat specific injuries, only vague symptoms of “I don’t feel good”? Well, gee whiz, I can do that with a bag of Oreos and a video, I don’t need to pay a homeopathic physician a hundred dollars.
I thought you said they used homeopathy on prolapsed uteruses. That’s an injury.
No, you’ve got it all wrong: first you dilute one Oreo in several gallons of distilled water. And you don’t watch the video, you read a review of it. Are you serious about getting better, or aren’t you?
I AM better, not just better, WELL. And that is the only reason I have any interest in telling other people about homeopathy. In 1975 my family was told my prognosis was poor. I lost thirty years, most of my adult life, to chronic illness. It was only after homeopathic treatment that I became fully functional for the first time since high school. I’m sure you will find ways to ridicule that statement also, but for me it’s the only fact that counts. I spent years on disability. Now I am paying five times as much in a year in taxes as I made in a year on disability.
Several of the treatments that were used on me by orthodox MDs in the “ancient” 1960s are now scorned by mainstream medicine. They had rationales for those treatments then and they now have rationales for the ones being used now. But rationales are not science.
I have not been to a doctor since 1987. That’s when I decided I would take full responsibility for my own health. My search finally led me to homeopathy, and that’s where I found a theory of medicine that made sense and a medicine that worked. If there are any readers of this forum who have chronic illness that has not responded to mainstream medical treatment I urge you to investigate this subject thoroughly. The National Center for Homeopathy is located at 801 N. Fairfax St., Suite 306, Alexandria VA 22314. Phone (703) 548-7790. http://www.homeopathic.org/ A huge catalog of books on the subject (many of them printed in India and therefore very inexpensive) is available at http://www.minimum.com/ As for me, I am so happy to be well and able to work that I am out of here and going to work! Goodbye and good luck!
Okay, I’ve been sitting here making my way through http://www.homeopathic.org/
First off, there’s nowhere to Search for my illness(es) to see a “for instance” to get an idea of what would be the prescribed course of treatment. You are evidently supposed to place yourself completely in the hands of your homeopath, and whatever he says, goes. You don’t have any way to second-guess or check up on him.
In allopathic medicine, I can look it up in the Merck Manual, among other sources, and compare what the doctor prescribes with what the mainstream recommends.
To me, this is not a point in homeopathy’s favor. It smacks too much of magic.
All the other home page clickthroughs are for self-referential stuff, in other words, preaching the gospel of homeopathy. Introduction, Media, Resources, Training, etc. “Find” meant how to find a homeopath in your area. Ah ha, Research! This looks promising.
Categories: Metaanalyses, Peer Reviewed Journals, Other Clinical Studies, Basic Research, Econometric, and Books.
Metaanalysis: http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm I’ve never heard of this discipline before. The first study says, “Rather than count and compare the number of trials which show efficacy of treatment, the researchers pooled the data from the various studies to assess data.” It concludes that yes, homeopathy works, but I don’t understand how they arrived at that conclusion.
There are only 2 studies in this category. The second one concludes, “The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications.” I don’t think this sounds like a ringing endorsement. Sounds a little bit waffling, as a matter of fact.
Peer-Reviewed Journals: http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm I’m not sure what “peer” group is intended here–homeopathic only, or the entire medical community? There are only 7 studies on this page. Most of them, to my mind, are not conclusive that homeopathy works.
Comparing homeopathy with acetaminophen for arthritis: very subjective, how do you tell if it works?
Treating vertigo: also very subjective.
Treating allergy: also very subjective.
Treating children with diarrhea with any kind of liquid at all will help them get better; it doesn’t have to be a homeopathic preparation.
Varicose veins: 44% improvement in venous filling time–what is that supposed to mean?
Fibrositis, meaning “tender spots”: also very subjective
Ultra-high dilution study: I don’t know what that proves.
Treating migraine: also very subjective.
Attention deficit disorder: also very subjective.
Acute otitis media in children: From the study–“This study of 131 children allowed parents to choose homeopathic or conventional medical care from their ear, nose, and throat doctor. 103 children underwent homeopathic treatment, while 28 underwent conventional care. They found that the total recurrences of the homeopathic treated group was .41 per patient, while the antibiotic treatment group was .70 per patient. Of the “homeopathic” children who did have another earache, 29.3% had a maximum of three recurrences, while 43.5% of the “antibiotic” children had a maximum of six recurrences.”
It seems to me that the study was biased to begin with, by allowing parents to choose homeopathic or allopathic–seems like the homeopathic parents might have been overall more motivated in terms of child care (keeping kids out of situations that cause otitis media, paying more attention overall to kids’ health). Also, the difference in recurrence (29.3% vs. 43.5%) is not, statistically speaking, very large.
At the end of “Other Clinical Studies” is something called "Studies with Negative Outcomes: http://www.homeopathic.org/Negative.htm These are 3 studies that showed homeopathic remedies didn’t work, but homeopathic.org says it’s because “the chronic headache study did not allow for adequate time according to homeopathic method in order to assess conclusive results. The osteoarthritis study did not individualize the homeopathic medicine nor compensate for the lack of it.” It sounds to me like just making excuses.
Basic research: http://www.homeopathic.org/lab.htm Here’s Eli and Niccoli’s “Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions.” Besides this, there are 7 other studies, having to do, among other things, with “exposing mouse peritoneal macrophages to very high dilutions of silica”. I’m not sure what that proves, either.
Econometric studies: http://www.homeopathic.org/cost.htm These are cost-utilization studies, from 7 different sources. I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove, either.
I can’t say that any of this motivates me to go out and find a homeopathic doctor.
Just saw this thread pop up again. Come on, this is getting to be a joke. At least Elia was a legitimate scientist before he went around touting the garbage posted earlier on this thread. I noticed no reply to my analysis of his work, so I assume that you, Marlene, also agree that the work is probably worth less than the electrons and bandwidth that it wastes on the web. I mean that there is no excuse for not using controls other than if you are actually intending to deceive-or you have deceived yourself… (Elia’s controls are bogus, any HS chem student can see that)
With Coulter, he never even was a legitimate scientist, he hasn’t even been an illegitimate scientist-He has his doctorate in education from Columbia, I believe. I am pretty sure that he has no formal training in research (the health sciences kind) and has never been published in any legitimate science journal that is peer reviewed. Coulter has been responsible for many anti-vaccination books that have all been thoroughly discredited as scare-mongering books that have little or no basis in fact. In one book written with Barbara Loe Fisher, SIDS was allegedly caused by the DPT vaccination, this is completely false and likely the opposite of reality. In another book, he alleges that vaccinations are responsible for violence and social mayhem. His most laughable work claims that AIDS is merely untreated syphilis and can be treated with some sort of penicillin regimen. Tell me, Marlene, are you asking us to seriously take analysis and health advice from this clown?
From the Coulter book quoted by Marlene above:
The fact remains that no one disputes that small amounts of many substances may have effects on a human body. What people are disputing is your and Coulter’s position that adding ZERO molecules of active substance X to your body will cure anything. There is no, none, nada, nil, zero, zilch evidence that a homeopathic remedy is any different than water (or a sugar pill depending on the type of administration used). Elia is a joke, the NMR papers cited on the other homeopathy thread were jokes (one cite probably doesn’t even exist), Coulter is a scientific clown and a disgrace. Once again, I will say, in the absence of any credible evidence, Homeopathy is nothing more than faith.
Marlene, you have failed to present anything other than a fatally flawed paper (by a guy who should probably know better), analysis by a buffoon and some testimonials-All under the guise of being “scientific-like”. Give it up, homeopathy is a placebo, no more and no less. Homeopathy has had, what, 150 yrs to show otherwise and has failed miserably? Homeopathy has never been a rigorous science and will never be one because homeopathy is anti-science in the same sense as astrology.
Jon
Thank you, Jkeller for shedding more light. I was wondering who this guy Coulter was.
Also a belated thanks to Fyslee for posting Dr. Imrie’s stuff. Wow, actual facts! It’s depressing when this kind of discussion degenerates into nothing more than “did not/did too”.
Here are some of my own homeopathic insights from the previous millenium (I DO understand how it works! That’s why I’m just a little sarcastic):
THE MEMORY OF WATER
Homeopathic musings…
Does homeopathic water “remember” its origins?
A lot of it has been through the gastrointestinal tracts of a lot of people. Thereafter a lot of toilets and sewage treatment plants, before finally ending up as pure, distilled water, ready to be brainwashed into forgetting its past. First then is it prepared to selectively remember only its contact with the active, healing substances it was brought into contact with for a short time in the apothecary’s lab.
Is homeopathic water actually reincarnated piss? Can a regression therapist help it remember its past lives? What tales could it tell? Of course it probably will remember passing through a famous historical person and actually being in a royal toilet! Homeopathic water isn’t just ordinary water. It comes with a royal pedigree.
Does the longer passage time for men than for women (men therefore succuss the water looonger than women) result in accounts from reincarnated piss of its origins from famous men, more frequently than from famous women? (I’m assuming that more succussing results in longer and better memory-retention.)
But what happens if the water has amnesia? If it has a defective memory function, how will it then be able to remember its contact with a healing substance? Again, it’ll need to go into therapy. Maybe then the regression therapist can help it recall its birth and other traumatic experiences. Can water be psychotic or neurotic? Maybe psychotherapy is what’s needed. Can water have split or multiple personalities? We’re really getting in deep water here!
This all sounds quite hypothetical. If, if, if… Like Roger Whitaker sings, “If’s an illusion”. Just like homeopathy. And illusions can be powerful things. Just like faith, they can move mountains - mountains of money!
It’s been said that there’s more between heaven and earth than meets the eye. Maybe. But most of it is free fantasy. And when free fantasy gets run through the alt. med. spinning wheel, it becomes an elaborate, sometimes enticingly beautiful fabric, which can be sold. It’s no longer free. Now fantasy costs! And since nobody in their right mind would dream of paying for fantasy, their cognitive dissonance plays them a trick. They excuse themselves for doing something so dumb, with the rationalization: “It worked for me. That’s proof enough”.
Another singer, Enya, has recorded a great CD called “The Memory of Trees”. Maybe she should record one called “The Memory of Water”…
We need to get Cosby, Seinfeld, etc. to work up a series of homeopathic jokes!
Sorry folks, but sometimes I just have a hard time keeping a straight face when thinking about homeopathy… It just proves that the more non-sensical and illogical something is, the more readily it gets swallowed by otherwise intelligent people.
John Stone replied with the following comment:
I once saw the calculation … but am too busy at the moment to recreate
it, but in every cup of water (8.4 x 10^24 molecules) there is at least one
molecule that has passed through the body of every famous person that ever
lived — Jesus, Aristotle, stc — which is one more molecule than what
it is claimed to contain … think about that the next time you go to communion
And Robert Imrie followed with this one:
I see a sketch wherein a cigar-smoking, spectacle-wearing, goateed,
lab-coat-clad Sigmund Fraud look-alike is conducting a “psyco-analytical
session.” His “patient,” an eight-ounce tumbler full of tap water, is
resting on an over-stuffed Victorian couch. A couple of “homeopathic
detector electrodes” lead from the tumbler to a computer/monitor setup next
to the good Doktor Professor. Dr. Fraud pensively presses his fingertips
together and asks "Und, how long vood you say you’ve been suffering from
zis ‘memory loss’? The computer monitor crackles with homeopathic static,
and the tumbler’s answer prints out across the screen. Eventually, the
good Doktor Professor pulls a gold pocketwatch from a vest pocket and
swings it in front of the tumbler assuring it that it’s “getting
shleeeeepier und shleeeeepier.” He then proceeds to employ post-hypnotic
suggestion to implant false memories, because, as we all know, “false
memories are better than no memories at all – even for a glassful of water.”
And one last quote:
“Homeopathy is bullshit. Only very, very diluted. It’s completely safe to drink.” – Peter Dorn
from the previous millenium (I DO understand how it works! That’s why I’m just a little sarcastic):