Best Homoeopathy blogs?

[Rolfe]

I'm thinking it's time to smarten the Voodoo Society web site (http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/) up a bit. (On Saturday I found myself in a small minibus taking three sopranos and five contraltos to a music workshop in Edinburgh. I soon discovered that the soprano sitting next to me was a fan of the web site, and I was motivated to do a bit more to it.)

Quite a lot of water has passed under the bridge since I last tried to bring the literature review up to date in 2005. It would be a mammoth task to link to and comment on everything relevant that's been published since then. But fortunately I don't have to do it because others have.

My plan is to add a page of links to good blog pages which debunk the most recent homoeopathic publications, arranged by subject, and with a short comment to let the reader know roughly what the blog is saying, about which publication.

So, I know that posters here have extensive knowledge of these blog pages (Mojo, I'm looking at you....), and I'd appreciate it if you guys would present your candidates for inclusion in this project.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Well, several of this lot: http://www.badscienceblogs.net/

Especially (alphabetically)

A canna’ change the laws of physics (http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/)
DC’s Improbable Science (http://dcscience.net/)
gimpy’s blog (http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/)
Hawk/Handsaw (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/)
the quackometer (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/default.htm)
What the hell is this? (http://shpalman.livejournal.com/)

There'll be good stuff on most of the others as well (you know some of these guys already, I think).

Add to that Orac (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/) and Science-Based Medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/).

ETA: And Neurologica (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/).

In many cases the debunking gets done in the comments after Dana or whoever has shown up touting their latest contenders.

[Rolfe]

Yes, I probably know them, but I haven't been saving links.

So keep the links coming, folks!

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Actually, a page setting out the critiques of the handful of papers that homoeopaths cite (e.g. the Reilly asthma studies, Frass et al, the various Jacobs childhood diarrhea studies, Linde et al, etc.) would be really handy. Many of the good critiques are scattered around on various forums and blog comments, often spread out over several posts, which makes them difficult to link to.

[Rolfe]

That's sort of what I had in mind. I'm also interested in the physicists' demolition job on Milgrom.

If I do that, the rest of the site doesn't need much tweaking to get it looking reasonably up to date. I might even gladden the hearts of the RCVS by re-doing the front page links to omit Peter Bowditch, simply because I think there's a better selection of papers available now.

Oh yes, and updating my contact details probably wouldn't go amiss.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

That's sort of what I had in mind. I'm also interested in the physicists' demolition job on Milgrom.


You'll find most of that on What the hell is this? (http://shpalman.livejournal.com/)

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

...the various Jacobs childhood diarrhea studies, Linde et al, etc.) would be really handy. ....

Notice that Ullman who cites her earlier paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634583), but not the most recent paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278) that showed it was ineffective: "DISCUSSION: The homeopathic combination therapy tested in this study did not significantly reduce the duration or severity of acute diarrhea in Honduran children. Further study is needed to develop affordable and effective methods of using homeopathy to reduce the global burden of childhood diarrhea."

Jennifer Jacobs must have had more supervision, because her more recent papers show no improvement with homeopathy. Sadly, her most recent is on dengue fever.

[Darat]

I'm thinking it's time to smarten the Voodoo Society web site (http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/) up a bit. (On Saturday I found myself in a small minibus taking three sopranos and five contraltos to a music workshop in Edinburgh. I soon discovered that the soprano sitting next to me was a fan of the web site, and I was motivated to do a bit more to it.)

...snip...

About bloody time!


;)

[Mojo]

...but not the most recent paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278) that showed it was ineffective...


Ah, but it wasn't individualised. A point almost as important as the outcome. ;)

[al_capone_junior]

Try these as well. I believe all of them are from the badscience.net/forums posters, but don't quote me on that.

http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/

http://jdc325.wordpress.com/

http://www.layscience.net/node

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/the_price_of_antivaccination_fanaticism.php

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/10/homeopaths-cens.html

[JJM]

There is a post on this, today http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=355 Nobody will be surprised to note that Brave Sir Dana (MPH!) has already commented.

This post at Respectful Insolence http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php is important because it debunks an article in a real journal. Through the comments, they quantify how much sicker the patients assigned to placebo were, which explains why the homeopathic remedy seemed to work.

Also, there is a 2nd year medical student who writes, occasionally, about sCAM. He has an entry http://medstudt.blogspot.com/2008/11/double-standard.html on homeopathy that is worth reading.

[Rolfe]

Thanks muchly guys. It might be a few weeks till I get anything done to the site - I'm still trying to sort out my new email settings.

Any more ideas, just post them here.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

There is a post on this, today http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=355 Nobody will be surprised to note that Brave Sir Dana (MPH!) has already commented.


I see he's now posted most of the studies needing debunking (he's missed Reilly this time for some reason)

I saw a good critique of one of the arsenic studies just the other day - I'll try to remember where...

[Mojo]

Can't remember where the arsenic thing was (I think it was in the comments to a blog post rather than the blog post itself).

Meanwhile, the page definitely needs links debunking the attacks on Shang et al, both specific papers and the general lines of attack.

Here's Hawk/Handsaw on two papers that were recently trumpeted as debunking Shang.

The Rutten/Stolper paper:
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-know-i-said-life-was-too-short.html
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-meta-analysis-delight.html
It remains to be seen whether homeopathy will have the courage to publish the first one, which has been submitted as a letter.

And Ludtke and Rutten:
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/shang-study-remains-firmly-in-water.html

On criticisms of Shang:

Hawk/Handsaw:
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/whats-wrong-with-shang-et-al.html
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/dana-ullman-says-thing-that-is-not.html

apgaylard:
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/the-myth-of-the-secret-eight/

[Yuri Nalyssus]

I'm thinking it's time to smarten the Voodoo Society web site (http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/) up a bit.
Excellent news, it's a fantastic resource and comes pretty close to the top of the list when doing google searches so it is still getting the message out.

Have you been following the latest flurry of letters in the vet press?

Yuri

[Rolfe]

Oh dear, is there more? I've been so busy up to now with teaching, and another vet being off sick at the same time (she's back now), and then rescuing my fried hard disc and acquiring and setting up a new computer, that I've just got a stack of unopened copies of Veterinary Times sitting on my bookshelf.

Oh well, I'd better have a read. Not sure I can face scanning another two-year correspondence thread though!

I really have to do something. I wish we had more people coming forward to be members though. And one of the Fellows I have listed is actually dead....

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

OK, I've had a quick scan - but my new mobile phone arrived in the middle of it so I need to start registering SIM cards and so on....

I see what you mean. Maybe I will do a bit of scanning. I see we have some new hom contributors. The latest (22nd December) from Mr. Grant is quite something.

Scientists should do some research before they denounce something. I would advise looking through a high-power microscope, with 10,000 times magnification. Put some sugar tablets into water, use different homoeopathic remedies and watch the changes that occur. See if you think all sugar tablets are the same after that.


:hb:

Somebody better tell Randi that the million bucks is about to be won.

I do get so fed up with these guys telling me what research I need to carry out to be convinced of their delusions. When I think about the hours and days I've spent reading the published research on both sides of the argument, not to mention the attempt to follow John Hoare's challenge in 2004 and the actual letter published in Homeopathy, I could just weep.

I do think that the bit that needs a response is Hunter's assertion that we are implying that his clients "are all being hoodwinked by charlatans". Nobody is suggesting that at all, even if sometimes we might have doubts about the sincerity of particular individuals. I certainly think Mr. Hunter himself is completely sincere. He's just wrong. Fallacy of the excluded middle, is that?

Oh dear, I may feel another letter coming on....

Rolfe.

PS. Hey, this new phone (a free replacement for one that just up and died) has a 2 megapixel camera, a USB port and a CD of software. I just asked for a phone! (They've changed the jack size on the charger though, so my collection of old chargers won't work with it. There's always something....)

[Mojo]

And one of the Fellows I have listed is actually dead...


Yeah, but so is Sam Hahnemann.

[Mojo]

I would advise looking thorough a high-power microscope, with 10,000 times magnification.


None of that tedious mucking about with Raman spectroscopy, then.

ETA: looking forward to the new letters appearing on the site. :)

[Rolfe]

Excellent news, it's a fantastic resource and comes pretty close to the top of the list when doing google searches so it is still getting the message out.


Well, that one won't be changing its domain or url, because that's the domain name I have owned from way back and I'm consolidating everything on that ISP because I've had excellent service from them. It's the Babylon 5 Mirror Universe and the page about Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky that are going to have to re-earn their ratings. Damn.

[pathetic plea for validation]
Do you still think it's funny? I thought it was hysterical when we first came up with the idea, but of couse I'm too familiar with the content to be able to judge now.
[/pathetic plea for validation]

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

[pathetic plea for validation]
Do you still think it's funny? I thought it was hysterical when we first came up with the idea, but of couse I'm too familiar with the content to be able to judge now.
[/pathetic plea for validation]

Rolfe.

I don't think it's hysterical. In fact I think it's pretty deep. And cool. Keep it up ;)

Hans

[Mojo]

That remindes me. The page should probably link to this: http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/oom.pdf

[Yuri Nalyssus]

I thinks it’s hilarious, but nothing is as funny as homeopathy!

“When the Baal-shem had to deliver something difficult, some occult work to help the creatures, he went to a specific place in the woods, kindled a fire and, in deep mystical meditation, said prayers — and everything happened as he had designed. When, a generation later, the Maggid of Meseritz had to do the same... etc etc etc...” - Walach, H 1999 Magic of Signs: A Nonlocal Interpretation of Homeopathy, Society for Scientifc Exploration (http://www.dr-walser.ch/magic_of_signs.pdf).

I’ll never forget the day I discovered that one! And who could forget this:

“The idea of quantum entanglement is borrowed from physics and developed into an algebraic argument to explain how double-blinding randomized controlled trials could lead to failure to provide unequivocal evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, and inability to distinguish proving and placebo groups in homeopathic pathogenic trials. By analogy with the famous double-slit experiment of quantum physics, and more modern notions of quantum information processing, these failings are understood as blinding causing information loss resulting from a kind of quantum superposition between the remedy and placebo” - Milgrom, L Journeys in The Country of The Blind: Entanglement Theory and The Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2007 March; 4(1): 7–16 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17342236)

Oh michty me!

Here’s an anecdote I heard the other day (names omitted to protect the guilty) which might help kindle the spark. A veterinary skin specialist of renown reported at a lecture that he had taken on a skin case which was being treated homeopathically at the same time. The dog was showing signs of Cushing’s syndrome which disappeared once the ‘homeopathy’ was stopped only to reappear once it was re-started.

For clarification:
Cushing’s syndrome is occasionally caused by overdosing with steroids, a drug frequently used to treat skin conditions.
Steroids are a major bete noir of homeopaths, a sort of allopathic devil’s brew, no homeopathically inclined owner would knowingly give them to their pet.
Steroids are only available from a vet and come in the form of cheap, small, white tablets.

I only report the facts, make of them what you will! :rolleyes:

Yuri

[Rolfe]

I just read your letter from early November. I thought it was great. But it's like talking to the proverbial brick wall.

I see this all started because of the August article. I've got all or most of the mags, so I'll go through in order. I don't have no 1 from 2009 though, someone must have raided my pigeonhole. Is there anything in that one that would make it worth my while stealing someone else's back?

Rolfe.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

I just read your letter from early November. I thought it was great. But it's like talking to the proverbial brick wall.

I see this all started because of the August article. I've got all or most of the mags, so I'll go through in order. I don't have no 1 from 2009 though, someone must have raided my pigeonhole. Is there anything in that one that would make it worth my while stealing someone else's back?

Rolfe.
My index is at work, I'll check tomorrow.

I've already got quite a few letters OCR'd as well as a copy of the original article which started the furore (written in response to a call for integration of CAVM into general practice). I can email them if you pm me your current address.

Yuri

[Yuri Nalyssus]

My index is at work, I'll check tomorrow.
Yes, there are a couple of 'pro' letters in that issue. One likening h'pathy to faith healing and one from my personal assistant Mr Taylor banging on about the lack of ingredients in the remedies.

Shouldn't take me too long to get my OCR'ing up to date if you'd like the letters for the web-site.

Yuri

(Thanks for the kind remarks about the November letter!)

[Rolfe]

OK, got the missing January issue from a colleague. I like the faith healing letter - the position of the tongue in relation to the cheek isn't blatant, but it's unmistakable.

I've checked back to the August Taylor article (there are too many people called Taylor in this game, by the way). I have that and everything from there on except for no 41, the 27th October issue. However, if you've already OCRed the relevant epistles, then there's no point me repeating the process. I'll PM you.

Do I take it that the article you're referring to, the "call for the integration of (S)CAM into general practice", is the Thompson one in Veterinary Review? [Goes off to check a different pile of paper.] Oh yes, I've got that too. April last year? I think I might even have read a bit of it at the time then thrown it down in disgust.

I think all this brou-ha-ha is constructive even if we aren't obviously "winning". Simply by providing an opposing point of view, and letting the PtB know that there are members of the profession who don't take a roses-round-the-door attitide to all this nonsense certainly puts the brakes on it to a significant extent.

By the way, I propose in this (and any other) threads to refer to any individual vet homs we need to talk about as Mr./Miss/Mrs. [Surname]. I don't think any of them has such a unique surname that googling on that alone will bring up this thread. And of course we recognise that they are all perfectly sincere, and in no way resemble badgers, average or not. :D

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

...but not the most recent paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278) that showed it was ineffective...


Ah, but it wasn't individualised. A point almost as important as the outcome. ;)


Now (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=355#comment-12569) Dana is saying that trials of non-individualised homoeopathy are OK, and objecting to the "new" Jacobs trial because it used a combination remedy.

Oh, hang on, now (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=355#comment-12584) he's citing a study of a combination remedy, so those must be OK as well.

I wonder what his next objection to the Jacobs paper will be...

[Mojo]

And who could forget this:[/FONT]

“The idea of quantum entanglement is borrowed from physics and developed into an algebraic argument to explain how double-blinding randomized controlled trials could lead to failure to provide unequivocal evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, and inability to distinguish proving and placebo groups in homeopathic pathogenic trials. By analogy with the famous double-slit experiment of quantum physics, and more modern notions of quantum information processing, these failings are understood as blinding causing information loss resulting from a kind of quantum superposition between the remedy and placebo” - Milgrom, L Journeys in The Country of The Blind: Entanglement Theory and The Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2007 March; 4(1): 7–16 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17342236)


The eLetters (http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/eletters/4/1/7) for that one are a hoot as well, and probably deserve a link from any discussion of the "demolition job on Milgrom".

[Yuri Nalyssus]

The eLetters (http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/eletters/4/1/7) for that one are a hoot as well, and probably deserve a link from any discussion of the "demolition job on Milgrom".
A patient enters the practitioner's 'space'and for a time, becomes during the consultation 'isolated' from the surrounding environment. This produces a "kind of 'quantum superposition' or 'coherence' between patient, practitioner, and therapy (in the case of homeopathy, this would be the remedy). When this state interacts with the outside world after the consultation, it gradually undergoes 'decoherence'(i.e., collapse of the quantum superposition), possibly to a state of cure.
Just reading this stuff makes me undergo decoherence.

Yuri

[Mojo]

"Decoherence" might explain why Lionel ended up replying to "Simon Bates".

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Do I take it that the article you're referring to, the "call for the integration of (S)CAM into general practice", is the Thompson one in Veterinary Review?
The very same ("seeking harmony in therapy" - d'you see what he did there!) - it’s available online though I’m having difficulty accessing the site. Like a red rag to a bull that one I’m afraid.

I think all this brou-ha-ha is constructive even if we aren't obviously "winning". Simply by providing an opposing point of view, and letting the PtB know that there are members of the profession who don't take a roses-round-the-door attitide to all this nonsense certainly puts the brakes on it to a significant extent.
There’s no chance of getting through to the hard core (though it’s fun to wind ‘em up a bit), they’ve got far too much invested on all sorts of levels. the object is to show the reasonable face of scepticism and point out a few uncomfortable home truths to a wider audience. Homeopaths seem to be moving towards a general admission that it’s impossible to tell the difference between remedies - quite a bit of ammo there.

It was interesting that the original ‘pro’ article appeared in a journal with no letters page; hence the change of publication for the reply article. Almost as if someone didn’t want to give room for further discussion. The same author is notable by his absence so far in the correspondence as well as his presence as a lecturer at a CPD course on alt med.

By the way, I propose in this (and any other) threads to refer to any individual vet homs we need to talk about as Mr./Miss/Mrs. [Surname]. I don't think any of them has such a unique surname that googling on that alone will bring up this thread. And of course we recognise that they are all perfectly sincere, and in no way resemble badgers, average or not.
Rolfe.
Agreed, we wouldn’t want any unpleasantness. I’ve always loved badgers, the way they root around in the nuts on BBC Springwatch - ahhh!

Yuri

ps. I like the name August Taylor, I may use that!

[Rolfe]

Veterinary Review sometimes publishes letters. They published one of mine, when I had a go at one of their articles, a guy trotting out yet another miracle cure story to justify it all. Interestingly, that was published as "part 1 of 2", but we never got to see part 2 for whatever reason. It was that letter that prompted one of the Vet Times correspondents to refer to my letters "in this and other publications". But then again there was a short exchange of fire in Veterinary Practice as well....

I may not be able to resist the challenge of the microscopic appearance of saturated sugar solutions.

Rolfe.

PS. I know what it was about that original article. In the same issue there was also an article by a sales executive employed by one of the serial offenders in the "just buy our lab machines, never mind if you have no expertise and no training in laboratory management, you too can be your own pathologist" department. All about quality control. How about, "there's no way a rank amateur (like a vet or a nurse) can ever hope to get professional-quality results from your machine, and experienced technical staff would probably fare no better, why are you selling it anyway?" Two in the one magazine. I just went off and made a cup of coffee I'm afraid.

[Rocko]

Actually, a page setting out the critiques of the handful of papers that homoeopaths cite (e.g. the Reilly asthma studies, Frass et al, the various Jacobs childhood diarrhea studies, Linde et al, etc.) would be really handy. Many of the good critiques are scattered around on various forums and blog comments, often spread out over several posts, which makes them difficult to link to.

Yes, this would be absolutely excellent. Very useful, especially as I now no longer have Athens access :(

[Rolfe]

Got the files, Yuri, received and understood.

Rolfe.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

I'm thinking it's time to smarten the Voodoo Society web site (http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/) up a bit.
For the humour section -

“Voodoo practitioners always recommend Panexa (http://www.panexa.com/), the drug you know your pet would prefer. Remember, there are no known medical circumstances (based on extensive internal testing) in which PANEXA cannot be used - it’s what your best friend would want.”

Apologies if we’ve had these already:
Science based medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/)
Majikthyse (http://majikthyse.wordpress.com/)
UK sceptics forum (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php)
Harriet Hall’s skepdoc (http://www.skepdoc.info/index.html)
Sense about science (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php)
Gimpy’s blog (http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/)

... and what happened to the bad homeopath! Anyone know?

There’s so much good stuff out there, it’s great fun going through all my old links!

Yuri

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Got the files, Yuri, received and understood.

Rolfe.
Excellent, not so dyslexic as I htought.

Yuri

[Rolfe]

“Voodoo practitioners always recommend Panexa (http://www.panexa.com/), the drug you know your pet would prefer. Remember, there are no known medical circumstances (based on extensive internal testing) in which PANEXA cannot be used - it’s what your best friend would want.”


That's fall-down funny!!!

Rolfe.

[Asolepius]

Sorry Rolfe, I am travelling through the Americas right now and only just picked this up from my hotel room in Costa Rica. I can strongly recommend the e-book Charisma and a Horse (http://www.mindblowingdecisions.com/about.htm). It contains the best demolition of Hahnemann and homeopathy that I have read.

[Rolfe]

Oh, great, I hadn't seen that. Looks fantastic. And a plug from my esteemed senior colleague Vince Marks too!

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Another one is Journey Through a Burning Mind (http://www.isaiadis.com/), which has a number of good posts about homoeopathy, for example this one about Boiron's use of meta-analyses (http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/).