More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[sbernie87]

Here was what Dana has to say, in response to my blog (http://secularstudentslb.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/homeopathy-revisited/): It is EASY to assume that homeopathic medicines are akin to placebos if one has a superficial understanding of what homeopathy is and what good research has been conducted to evaluate it.
I actually think that skeptics of alternative medicine can and should separately understand and evaluate homeopathy if you wish to honor good scientific thinking. Mixing various subjects together is just sloppy, and I know that skeptics don't like or honor such undisciplined thinking.
Further, it is necessary for skeptics of homeopathy to do their homework on the subject. I am amazed to have debated skeptics of homeopathy who know virtually nothing about it and have only a very superficial knowledge of the basic science and clinical science research on the subject. Such sloppiness is common amongst people who think of themselves as defenders of "science." There is more than a tad amount of irony here. The references to the 200+ clinical studies and the several hundred basic science studies are at my website (www.homeopathic.com (http://www.homeopathic.com/)) and in the ebook that I've written...as well as some of the high quality books on homeopathic research that we sell (i.e. one by Drs. Bellavite and Signorini as well as Dr. Michael Dean are good examples).
If you don't want to spend a dime, you can read the article at my website called " Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works (http://homeopathic.com/articles/homeopathy_works.php)." I will be curious if those of you who choose to be skeptical of homeopathy even know much about what it is.
Some new research on the silicates in water provide some very provocative possibilities on how the structure in water can change and how these nano-sized "silica chips" and the nano-bubbles can influence the water. I can tell you that later this week a new study on homeopathy and water will be published by two internationally respected professors of material sciences: Rustom Roy, PhD (of Penn State University) and Bill Tiller, PhD (former head of material sciences at Stanford). If any of your fellow skeptics can claim greater understanding of water than these two gentlemen, please publish your work.

I will be the first to acknowledge that not all of homeopathic research has positive results, though most meta-analyses show that there is more evidence that the "placebo explanation" for homeopathy is inadequate. Please also know that the 2005 comparison of homeopathic and conventional studies that was published in the Lancet was embarrassingly bad science. Here's a short review/critique of it:
In 2005, the representatives of World Health Organization (WHO) were working on a report on homeopathic medicine, and one of the skeptics of homeopathy who was asked to review this report for comment complained bitterly about it because it was too “positive” towards homeopathy. He then leaked it to other skeptics and to the Lancet, a usually highly respected medical journal. In response to the potentially positive report on homeopathy from WHO, the Lancet published an article attacking this “report” that had not even been completed or published (Critics, 2005), and further, the Lancet rushed to publication a “study” that compared homeopathic and conventional medical treatment (Shang, et al, 2005).
The idea for comparing clinical studies of homeopathic and conventional medicine is certainly a good one, but actually doing so in a fair and accurate way is more challenging than it may seem. The lead author of this comparative study, however, was not the ideal physician or scientist to evaluate homeopathy objectively. Dr. M. Egger is a Swiss physician who is notoriously and actively anti-homeopathy. Before he completed his study, he informed the editors at the Lancet that he had planned to submit his study to them and that he fully expected the results to show that homeopathic medicines didn’t work.
Egger and his team first found 110 placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of homeopathic medicine. Next, they selected 110 “matched” placebo-controlled trials. Finding “matched” trials usually means finding experiments that sought to treat people with a similar disease, in a similar population, and who were treated for a similar period of time, but the researchers never explained how or why they included or excluded any of the conventional medical trials. And needless to say, finding matched experiments is much more difficult than it sounds. Although it is easy to question if these researchers found matched experiments or not, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they were successful in doing so.
Next, the researchers choose to evaluate the “quality of research design” and how each trial was conducted. The researchers determined that only 21 of the homeopathic studies were of a “high quality,” and yet, ironically, they found only 9 (!) of the conventional medical studies to be of a similar high quality.[1] Then, without adequate explanation, the researchers decided to only evaluate those studies that were both “high quality” and had large numbers of patients in each trial. The researchers found 8 homeopathic studies that fit these characteristics and only 6 conventional medical studies. Only two of the eight homeopathic studies used homeopathic medicines that were individualized to each patient, with the remaining studies giving the same medicine to everyone (this method may make research easier, but it is not necessarily a good test of the homeopathic methodology).
Of the remaining 8 homeopathic studies and 6 conventional medical studies, the studies were not matched in any way. How or why the researchers would or could claim that these studies were comparable requires “creative thinking” and logic (or illogic). Further, the researchers never provided the analysis of the results of the 21 “high quality” homeopathic studies as compared with the 9 conventional studies.
What is also interesting is the fact that the researchers acknowledged that they found eight homeopathic studies in the treatment of people with acute respiratory tract infections and that these studies found “substantial beneficial effect” and that this effect was “robust.” However, without adequate evidence or explanation, the researchers asserted that these studies could not be “trusted” and that eight trials is simply not enough to provide an adequate analysis. And yet, these same researchers evaluated 8 other homeopathic trials and concluded that they showed no obvious better treatment than the 6 conventional studies.
If the above concerns were not enough to lead readers to the conclusion that this is “garbage in, garbage out” type of comparative research, there are still even more concerns about this study. For instance, the researchers did not even reveal which studies were selected until many months later. And when the studies were finally announced, it was shocking to note that they had selected a study testing a single homeopathic medicine in the treatment of “weight-loss” (this study bordered on the preposterous because homeopaths assert that there is no one single remedy to augment weight-loss), another study evaluated the use of a homeopathic formula in the prevention of influenza (while there have been at least three large studies verifying the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in the treatment of influenza, only one of these three large studies was selected, while the study that evaluated its prevention was selected even though it was simply an exploratory investigation, not one that homeopaths necessarily expected to have a positive outcome).

As for some good studies in homeopathy...
COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) is the #4 reason that people in the US die. A study conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital found "substantially significant" results from a double-blind placebo-controlled trial using homeopathic doses of potassium dichromate. This study was published in the most respected journal in medical respiratory health, CHEST.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed) 50% (!) of people in hospitals who experience severe sepsis die, and yet, the below study found that there was a 50% reduction in these deaths in those people with severe sepsis who were individually prescribed homeopathic medicines, as compared with those patients who underwent the same homeopathic interview process but who were given a placebo. There study was also double-blind, placebo controlled and randomized.
Adjunctive homeopathic treatment in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an intensive care unit. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15892486&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum)

When skeptics of homeopathy assert that there is "nothing" in homeopathic medicines, they seem to
assume that they know everything there is to know about the physics of water. I want to remind skeptics that good and serious scientists maintain a high level of HUMILITY about what they know and what they don't know. I am proud of my humility of what I know and what I don't know.

I am perfectly familiar with Mr. Randi's silly offer. He was involved in the intellectually dishonest study conducted by ABC's 20/20 program. If Randi was serious about science, he would have supported my critique of Mr. Stossel's junk science. For details about this junk journalism/science, go to: http://homeopathic.com/articles/media/index.php (http://homeopathic.com/articles/media/index.php)

I honor conventional medicine for its integrity to consistently and repeatedly disprove itself. What treatments have lasted 50 or more years? That's consistency! Homeopaths have expanded considerably its use of various medicines, but we have maintained the use of our past medicines too because 200 years of clinical experience has verified it.

Dana Ullman, MPH


So, what do you think, Skeptics? Has Dana proven homeopathy? Oh my!

[realpaladin]

If we would grant the woo-woo physics of water...

To me, it does not say one single thing on how this then would translate in the body being triggered into healing.

And, I never got an answer to a question I once asked in a homeopathy store:

If it works, then why can I not put some diluted drops of most of the remedies into the ocean and have all people on the planet heal by just taking a dip in the ocean?

[wahrheit]

I honor conventional medicine for its integrity to consistently and repeatedly disprove itself. What treatments have lasted 50 or more years? That's consistency! Homeopaths have expanded considerably its use of various medicines, but we have maintained the use of our past medicines too because 200 years of clinical experience has verified it.

You neither need to be a top skeptic nor a health professional to call 'BS' on that last paragraph alone. This must be a very dumb person who considers himself being very smart. And as long as there are people more stupid than him, he is doing fine.

[Kochanski]

What a pompous twit he is.

[nails3jesus0]

I honor conventional medicine for its integrity to consistently and repeatedly disprove itself. What treatments have lasted 50 or more years? That's consistency!

you would think anyone could see the problem with this statement before they hit send, but i guess not.

[realpaladin]

Not if they are Amish... what other modes of transport have lasted 50 years or more? That is consistency!

[fls]

I completely agree that the placebo explanation is inadequate. It has been demonstrated that the effect is also due to bias in the design, analysis and reporting of homeopathic studies.

The criticisms of the Lancet article are contrived. The characteristics on which the studies were matched was explained in detail. The reasoning behind the selection of studies for further analysis was explained in detail and was valid - i.e. to see what would happen to the outcomes if the studies that were least influenced by bias were analyzed. The outcomes were still significant in the conventional medicine trials, but the significance disappeared in the homeopathic trials.

The other clinical trials mentioned are isolated "significant" findings. Since we expect this to happen in 5% of trials (in the absence of bias), the studies need independent replication. Otherwise it is more likely that they are simply spurious results, given the lack of any other support.

Linda

[Davo]

If we would grant the woo-woo physics of water...


If it works, then why can I not put some diluted drops of most of the remedies into the ocean and have all people on the planet heal by just taking a dip in the ocean?

I think you could, but then the homeopaths wouldn`t make any money.

I was thinking of a similar idea adding a homeopathic solution to the local drinking water for a negligible sum (Taking away all business from Homeopaths). That would bring out the homeopaths to start attacking their own theories.

Anyone know what water homeopaths use to dilute their solutions, is it a special kind of water ?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am amazed to have debated skeptics of homeopathy who know virtually nothing about it and have only a very superficial knowledge of the basic science and clinical science research on the subject.

"Basic science" of homeopathy? Huhn?

[TheGline]

"I am perfectly familiar with Randi's silly offer."

I love how an offer for a double-blinded, controlled experiment conducted with due oversight is branded with the ad hominem "silly".

[sbernie87]

What a pompous twit he is.

You should have seen his more "knee-jerk" reaction. He made me promise not to share it.

[Cuddles]

What treatments have lasted 50 or more years?

Hmm, let me think. Aspirin? 108 years. Penicillin? 79 years. Paracetamol? 129 years. Bandages? Probably thousands. Is this person actually insane?

[Mojo]

And, I never got an answer to a question I once asked in a homeopathy store:

If it works, then why can I not put some diluted drops of most of the remedies into the ocean and have all people on the planet heal by just taking a dip in the ocean?


They have a whole host of "reasons". For example the seawater will not have been succussed properly, or will not have been diluted serially in the approved manner; homoeopathy, it is claimed, only works when properly individualised to the particular patient's set of symptoms (a handy get-out for negative results of clinical trials studying the effects of a particular remedy for a particular condition, at least until someone carried out a double blind placebo controlled trial of individualised homoeopathy and found that it still didn't work, hence the next one); there is some sort of magic (possibly even "quantum"!) entanglement between the patient, the practitioner and the remedy which is destroyed by any blinding process...

A more important question, in view of the claims that it only works if properly individualised, is: why do homoeopaths not object to OTC "homoeopathic" remedies sold to treat a particular condition?

[realpaladin]

A more important question, in view of the claims that it only works if properly individualised, is: why do homoeopaths not object to OTC "homoeopathic" remedies sold to treat a particular condition?

Money?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Do homeopaths enjoy watered down drinks?

[realpaladin]

Do homeopaths enjoy watered down drinks?

You know, I was just thinking about something along these lines....

I am going to try two homeopathic experiments!

One:
First I am going to create a C30 solution of Jack Daniels (have to do that first, because I have to be sober to do all the measuring and shaking... well not the shaking, but you get my drift)

Then I am going to get drunk on JD.
Then, if I am able to remember, I will try the solution to see if it cures me of being drunk!

Two:
I am taking the C30 solution prepared earlier and see if it makes me more drunk!

[jon]

"I am perfectly familiar with Randi's silly offer."

I love how an offer for a double-blinded, controlled experiment conducted with due oversight is branded with the ad hominem "silly".

Not to mention an offer of $1m for carrying out such an experiment (assuming homeopathy works, of course...) I mean, if someone offered me a million bucks research funding in exchange for carrying out one simple experiment, I wouldn't really care how 'silly' what they wanted me to do was...hell, if I was asked to wear a clown outfit while working, my response would be 'what type of shoes' :D

Maybe homeopathic research is better funded, though? Or Dana doubts that homeopathy would pass such a 'silly' challenge.

[Mojo]

I am going to try two homeopathic experiments!

One:
First I am going to create a C30 solution of Jack Daniels (have to do that first, because I have to be sober to do all the measuring and shaking... well not the shaking, but you get my drift)

Then I am going to get drunk on JD.
Then, if I am able to remember, I will try the solution to see if it cures me of being drunk!


You need a control.

Blinding this shouldn't be too difficult though: when preparing the 3oC JD, just take two bottles, put your 30C JD in one and water in the other, and mark them "A" and "B". With a bit of luck you won't be able to remember which is which after you've drunk the JD. Then get a friend to volunteer to get drunk with you and give them whichever bottle you don't use yourself.

If you want to double blind the experiment, label the bottles while drunk. ;)

[Pipirr]

The other clinical trials mentioned are isolated "significant" findings. Since we expect this to happen in 5% of trials (in the absence of bias), the studies need independent replication. Otherwise it is more likely that they are simply spurious results, given the lack of any other support.

Linda

Would you mind elaborating on that? I understand that a small percent of all experiments will produce positive results. Of course whether those results could be replicated independently is another matter.

But why should we expect 5%? And in absence of what bias?

I see it as the best explanation for why positive homeopathy publications exist, and why none of them (to my knowledge) have been replicated. But I don't really get the details...

[Rolfe]

The quick version is that when a scientific experiment reports a significant result, the cutoff for significance is usually that the chances of the result occurring by accident (that is, in the absence of any real difference between the two test groups) is only 1 in 20 (that is 5%, usually expressed as p<0.05, the probability of the result being random is less than 0.05).

So if you do an experiment to try to find a difference where none exists, and you keep doing it, then one shot out of every 20 repetitions will give you an apparently significant difference.

One shot in 100 will give you significance at p<0.01, and one out of every 1,000 will get you p<0.001, which is usually considered to be a pretty strong indication of significance.

Rolfe.

[fls]

Would you mind elaborating on that? I understand that a small percent of all experiments will produce positive results. Of course whether those results could be replicated independently is another matter.

But why should we expect 5%?

Five percent simply represents our arbitrary cut-off for significance testing.

A clinical trial is the process of taking a bunch of people, dividing them into two groups and then taking some measurements after a period of time has passed. We expect some differences in the measurements between the two groups just due to chance. What we are really interested in knowing is whether the differences are so unexpected (if it were only due to chance) that we really should consider that the treatment given to one of the groups contributed to the difference. By convention, we have chosen p<0.05 (less than %5 chance or 1 chance in 20) as the cut-off for considering a difference so unexpected that it provides evidence in favour of a real drug effect. However, 1000's of clinical trials have been performed, which means that we should expect to see 100's (i.e. 5%) of "statistically significant" differences due to chance, so we need to be cautious of isolated findings.

And in absence of what bias?

Bias is the propensity to create differences between groups that is unrelated to the purported intervention.

For example, there may be a bias in the way you divide the people into two groups (putting all the men in one group and all the women in the other would lead to obvious differences), the two groups may undergo different treatment, the measurements may be performed differently, the method of analysis may create differences that wouldn't exist otherwise, etc.

These problems are well-documented and pervasive in homeopathic research.

Linda

[Pipirr]

Two good answers, thanks Rolfe and Linda.

However, 1000's of clinical trials have been performed, which means that we should expect to see 100's (i.e. 5%) of "statistically significant" differences due to chance, so we need to be cautious of isolated findings.

I guess that's the key point for me. Thanks for clarifying.

[TX50]

Do homeopaths enjoy watered down drinks?

Shaken, not stirred, presumably.

Homeopathic "remedies" would definitely cure dehydration (and would be
good for plants too).

[Mojo]

Homeopathic "remedies" would definitely cure dehydration (and would be good for plants too).


Not really: they're usually administered in the form of a sugar pill on which the magic water has been dripped and allowed to evaporate.

So there's not even any of the water left to remember what it used to have dissolved in it...

[realpaladin]

To quote supafly: "Awww, my frickin' head!"

Meaning, homeopathically curing a hangover did not work...

(Yeah, I really tried)

[hipparchia]

I am constantly confused by the claims of homeopaths.

For one, there is the British (classical) and French schools. French prescripts separate "substances" or mixes of substances to treat specific diseases. Think Boiron. There are people who swear by those remedies. Then, there are those for whom a homeopath need not even have a diagnosis, but merely draw a picture of the person's symptoms and personality, and prescribe the best possible remedy, but of only one kind.

Then, there is the Organon itself, the deluded writings of Mr. Hahneman. In it, he explicitly claims that homeopathy is not for surgical cases or acute conditions.

Why then the sepsis study? And what remedy?

Besides, the results of the study are not statistically significant. Was the study replicated? Important thingy.

Sometimes homeopaths who swear by the British-classical-two hour interview homeopathy will gladly quote the research of Boiron.

What I have noticed- homeopathy is like a religion. It is quasi-scientific, mystical, with a touch of alchemy to it and a chance to throw in quantum mechanics, if you are so inclined. So, the adherents will constantly move the goalposts, quote failed studies and all the time violate their own principles (such as claiming how important it is to have a personalized cure while at the same time recommenting a certain remedy over an internet forum).

I am constantly pissed when people use homeopathy for children, sometimes forgoing other treatment.

As for the alcohol preparation: when dilluted, it should actually be a hangover remedy. And dilluted coffee should be a sleeping pill.

[realpaladin]

As for the alcohol preparation: when dilluted, it should actually be a hangover remedy. And dilluted coffee should be a sleeping pill.

My achin' brain says nope.

And the first person brave enough to serve me diluted coffee will meet the natural sleeping pill called 'knuckles' :)

[johnnyc]

I though I’d share an amusing story my wife relayed to me. Her friend, our friendly neighbourhood alternative healer, left a bottle of homeopathic pills unattended at home, which were then swallowed by her daughter. Frantic, she phoned the British Homeopathic Society, who told her not to worry – the child would not suffer any ill effects!

I wonder whether they believe it themselves.

[RenaissanceBiker]

My achin' brain says nope.

And the first person brave enough to serve me diluted coffee will meet the natural sleeping pill called 'knuckles' :)

Followed by my all-natural size 11 boot.
http://www.harley-davidson.com/media/images/productphotos/MC/98408_M_77d5.jpg

[JamesGully]

I appreciate good skeptical thinking, and yet, am I the only one who thinks that no one responded to the numerous basic science and clinical studies that Dana Ullman referenced?

Am I the only one who think that Ullman also gave a good, solid critique of that questionably done "meta-analysis" that sought to compare 110 homeopathic and allopathic studies? Am I the only one who is surprised that even the skeptics who did this study found that the homeopathic studies had a larger number of higher percentage of higher quality studies than the allopathic studies (by THEIR own definition of high quality studies).

At first blush, homeopathy seems weird to me too, but heck, nature is full of mysteries. Humility is a healthy scientific attitude.

[Mashuna]

I appreciate good skeptical thinking, and yet, am I the only one who thinks that no one responded to the numerous basic science and clinical studies that Dana Ullman referenced?

Am I the only one who think that Ullman also gave a good, solid critique of that questionably done "meta-analysis" that sought to compare 110 homeopathic and allopathic studies? Am I the only one who is surprised that even the skeptics who did this study found that the homeopathic studies had a larger number of higher percentage of higher quality studies than the allopathic studies (by THEIR own definition of high quality studies).

At first blush, homeopathy seems weird to me too, but heck, nature is full of mysteries. Humility is a healthy scientific attitude.

I think post 7 is the one that best answers your concerns. Whether you agree with the post in a separate issue, but the question has been answered there :D .

[fls]

I appreciate good skeptical thinking, and yet, am I the only one who thinks that no one responded to the numerous basic science and clinical studies that Dana Ullman referenced?

Am I the only one who think that Ullman also gave a good, solid critique of that questionably done "meta-analysis" that sought to compare 110 homeopathic and allopathic studies? Am I the only one who is surprised that even the skeptics who did this study found that the homeopathic studies had a larger number of higher percentage of higher quality studies than the allopathic studies (by THEIR own definition of high quality studies).

At first blush, homeopathy seems weird to me too, but heck, nature is full of mysteries. Humility is a healthy scientific attitude.

I attempted to respond to the critique of the metanalysis (thanks for pointing that out Mashuna). I don't think that I would call it a "good, solid critique" as many of the criticisms were not valid or were irrelevant. For example, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about differences in the percentage of high quality studies, since two different methods were used to obtain that number. For the homeopathy group it is a population value (i.e. all the homeopathy studies of that type were included) and for the conventional medicine group it is a sample value. Since the sample was not drawn randomly, but rather selected, it is a biased sample on that value and cannot be used to make general predictions about the percentage of high quality studies among conventional medicine trials. Also, the measures of quality were fairly gross and only really differed on one measure (concealment of allocation) - it more likely represented a variation in whether it was reported, than in the actual performance.

Ullman's critique would be relevant if one were talking about disproving homeopathy. The analysis does not exclude the possibility that there is a real effect. However, since homeopathy is without supporting evidence independent of the results of clinical trials, it is sufficient to point out that there are alternate explanations for those results. And the support for those alternate explanations does not need to be robust, it simply needs to be plausible - a standard the meta-analysis easily acheives.

Ullman also makes the common mistake of thinking that individual trials demonstrating the effects of a "special" water provides support for homeopathy. At best, all it can demonstrate is that a particular water may have a therapeutic effect in a particular condition. But it doesn't tell us why. The analogy I have used in the past is "alfabetopathy". If I choose a drug that starts with the same letter as the condition it is meant to treat and a clinical trial shows that the drug is effective, that doesn't mean that I have proven that drugs can be chosen on the basis of their initial letters.

It is true that many people who are skeptical of homeopathy are ignorant of the details, but that is true of anything in science - no one person has adequate knowledge, but collectively we do. The skepticism is based on trust in the process of the objective evaluation from those in the field, rather than based on the wishful thinking of individuals. I think the comments in this thread have been directed at evaluating those things that we are competent to evaluate, such as whether appeals to longevity are valid or whether it is "silly" to perform studies that remove/reduce the effects of chance and bias.

I agree that humility is important, but why assume skepticism reflects a lack of humility? It seems to me that it is the skeptics, who realize that we are all subject to cognitive biases and therefore need to actively avoid their effects, who demonstrate humility. It is the homeopaths who somehow seem to think they are immune from bias and can trust their "clinical experience" who suffer from a lack of humility.

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm, let me think. Aspirin? 108 years. Penicillin? 79 years. Paracetamol? 129 years. Bandages? Probably thousands. Is this person actually insane?

Yes. I am surprised that he is not advocating bleeding to balance the humors, now there is a paradigm that lasted, not like this silly effective medicine one that is constantly coming out with new things.

[Big Al]

It's not even as simple as substance --> water --> pill. Many of the substances don't dissolve in water, so a solvent such as alcohol is used. So alcohol (a hydroxylated hydrocarbon, C2H5OH) acts the same as water (an inorganic ionic polar molecule H+OH-) works the same as sugar (a disaccharide whose formula I can't remember).

Hang on a minute... they all have hydroxyl groups... maybe THAT's the magic ingredient! So caustic soda (NaOH) ought to work, too! Perhaps Dana would consider producing a homeopathic solution of ammonia in caustic soda and chugging it down. The two alkalis should cancel themselves out.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Ullman has shown up on Orac's blog with the exact same rant (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-439779)!

I love the fact that this part where he says... As for some good studies in homeopathy...
COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) is the #4 reason that people in the US die. A study conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital found "substantially significant" results from a double-blind placebo-controlled trial using homeopathic doses of potassium dichromate. This study was published in the most respected journal in medical respiratory health, CHEST.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed)

But fails to actually identify the paper, and the actual research facility, but just lists the Pubmed search engine. It did not take too long to find out it was something done in an Institute of Homeopathy! (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15764779&itool=pubmed_abstractplus)

But there was a response that I wish I could read: Treating critically ill patients with sugar pills. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=17296675).... especially after reading what the author of that comment says about Homeopathic hospitals in his website (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#rlhh3),
Fisher suggests you write to your MP to prevent closure of the RLHH.
I suggest you write to your MP to support closure of the RLHH.

[jon]

But there was a response that I wish I could read: Treating critically ill patients with sugar pills. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=17296675).... especially after reading what the author of that comment says about Homeopathic hospitals in his website (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#rlhh3),

Closed access journals are a pain. I'll quote a good part of Colquhoun's letter below:


It surprises me that CHEST would publish an article (March 2005)127 on the effect of a therapeutic agent when in fact the patients received none of the agent mentioned in the title of the article. [T]he “potassium dichromate” was a homeopathic C30 dilution. That is a dilution by a factor of 1060 [which] means there would be one molecule in a sphere with a diameter of approximately 1.46 × 1011 m....To describe this as “diluted and well shaken,” as the authors do, is the understatement of the century. The fact of the matter is that the medicine contained no medicine.

The authors...will doubtless claim some magic effect of shaking that causes the water to remember...The memory of water has been studied quite a lot. The estimate of the duration of this memory has been revised...downwards...to approximately 50 femtoseconds...That is not a very good shelf life.

It is one thing to tolerate homeopathy as a harmless 19th century eccentricity for its placebo effect in minor self-limiting conditions like colds. It is quite another to have it recommended for seriously ill patients. That is downright dangerous.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Closed access journals are a pain. I'll quote a good part of Colquhoun's letter below:

Thank you!!!

Edit to add: May I copy that in a reply in Orac's blog?

[jon]

Thank you!!!

Edit to add: May I copy that in a reply in Orac's blog?

You're welcome. I've got no problem with you adding that to orac's blog. Not sure if the journal might be awkward about copyright, though...

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

You're welcome. I've got no problem with you adding that to orac's blog. Not sure if the journal might be awkward about copyright, though...

Done... oh, and I took the liberty of checking out some of his other claims, particularly the one on Oscillococcinum (http://www.homeowatch.org/history/oscillo.html). He claims that studies showing it as good for influenza were replicated. I checked, but could not really find them. Edit to add: I did call him dishonest... in fact he is a liar who is posting all over trying to get business over to himself!

[sbernie87]

I suspect that JamesGully is Dana Ullman, judging by the tone of his post, his recent reg-date, and an email I received from Dana where he chided me for sharing his previous e-mail with all of you "randi-holics[sic]."

[fls]

Done... oh, and I took the liberty of checking out some of his other claims, particularly the one on Oscillococcinum (http://www.homeowatch.org/history/oscillo.html). He claims that studies showing it as good for influenza were replicated. I checked, but could not really find them. Edit to add: I did call him dishonest... in fact he is a liar who is posting all over trying to get business over to himself!

From Dana Ullman's article in FASEB journal (http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/14/2661#B5).....

He refers to three influenza studies with links to two of the abstracts.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8CWK-4MDGN8F-3&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=595be723c5173e8b1cbaa97deb3ea544

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2655683&dopt=Abstract

Linda

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

From Dana Ullman's article in FASEB journal (http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/14/2661#B5).....

He refers to three influenza studies with links to two of the abstracts.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8CWK-4MDGN8F-3&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=595be723c5173e8b1cbaa97deb3ea544

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2655683&dopt=Abstract

Linda

Okay, but I would have preferred he listed them. Also, I don't think the results are as definitive as he says.

[Drudgewire]

Hooray for homeopathy! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_re_us/leukemia_death)

:(

[fls]

Okay, but I would have preferred he listed them. Also, I don't think the results are as definitive as he says.

No. The results are barely statistically significant, and there are aspects which are suspicious - they measure a lot of stuff which makes it easier to select (post hoc) those combinations which happen to show the most difference. If correction for multiple comparisons was made to the signficance level, none of the results would be significant. Then when you take into consideration that this is the best they have to show for all of homeopathy, it's underwhelming to say the least.

Linda

[Rolfe]

I think we need to go back to the basis of Randi's challenge. Can anyone, reliably and repeatedly, by any method at all, tell the difference between a homoeopathically-prepared sugar pill and an ordinary sugar pill? Dana Ullman can't do it, in fact nobody can. If there was any real effect that could be measured, that ought to be a pushover.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Hooray for homeopathy! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_re_us/leukemia_death)

:(A sad story, but that isn't homoeopathy: After researching alternative treatments, they found a doctor specializing in holistic medicine who recommended a healthier diet along with supplements to boost Noah's immune system.

Not that homoeopathy would have done any better.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

It is now known publicly that I find Dana Ullman (he with the Masters in Public Health) to be particularly annoying... and really lacking in answers:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-442613

(yes, some kind soul who does medical research emailed me some of the full papers Brave Sir Dana was using as "proof"... and then I took off)

Note: Try not to get sick anywhere near the University Hospital in Vienna, or in Graz. Well, Graz is kind of a boring town anyway for tourists... and so was Vienna (even with its monument to the Great Plague)... Salzburg were more satisfying to us on our trip to Austria.

[JamesGully]

For people who are skeptical of homeopathy, it is usually because you are unfamiliar with its body of evidence, including its basic science, its clinical trials, its epidemiology, and its history. In addition to this body of evidence, it may be helpful to understand the physics of water.

The below article was published in the MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR by an Italian MD and senior research scientist at the University of Siena:
medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf

Because I'm a relative newbie, I may not be able to post a link. If you cannot see it, you can go to this medical journal's website at medscionit.com and look under its January 2007 issue. This is a very impressive article. I am curious if any of you are really brave enough to comment on it.


Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.

[Miss Whiplash]

For people who are skeptical of homeopathy, it is usually because you are unfamiliar with its body of evidence, including its basic science, its clinical trials, its epidemiology, and its history. In addition to this body of evidence, it may be helpful to understand the physics of water.

The below article was published in the MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR by an Italian MD and senior research scientist at the University of Siena:
medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf

Because I'm a relative newbie, I may not be able to post a link. If you cannot see it, you can go to this medical journal's website at medscionit.com and look under its January 2007 issue. This is a very impressive article. I am curious if any of you are really brave enough to comment on it.


Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.

I'm waiting but nothing's happening. I'll post the link here (medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf) for you though.

[Madalch]

Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.
No, my pop is about the bubbles. Nobody likes to drink flat pop.

And the article you gave the link to is crap. The author presents some interesting hand-waving arguments about how water may be able to change its structure (apparently, if carbon can be graphite or diamond, then water obviously can form different phases, right?), but nothing that approaches anything other than the usual homeopathic fantasies and fictions about aqueous memory. Water does not form different phases under ordinary conditions.

I am a chemist with a PhD. I know something about molecular structures and phases. The author of this article does not.

[fls]

For people who are skeptical of homeopathy, it is usually because you are unfamiliar with its body of evidence, including its basic science, its clinical trials, its epidemiology, and its history. In addition to this body of evidence, it may be helpful to understand the physics of water.

You are mistaken if you think ignorance drives the skepticism of myself and many others here. Knowledge and familiarity with the information you list above is what drives my skepticism.

The below article was published in the MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR by an Italian MD and senior research scientist at the University of Siena:
medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf

Because I'm a relative newbie, I may not be able to post a link. If you cannot see it, you can go to this medical journal's website at medscionit.com and look under its January 2007 issue. This is a very impressive article. I am curious if any of you are really brave enough to comment on it.


Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.

Yawn. I didn't see a single novel fallacy. How disappointing.

Linda

[jon]

I didn't get past the bit where the author 'defines' science - drawing a good part of his information from answers.com and most of it from a short article in the 'journal of theoretics'. Who referried the paper - and why didn't they tell the author to engage with the philosophy of science literature on what 'science' is, or look at how practising scientists use the word, or at least find some sensible way of addressing the question of 'what is science' - and why was he allowed to reference answers.com...

Does it get any better?

[fuelair]

For people who are skeptical of homeopathy, it is usually because you are unfamiliar with its body of evidence, including its basic science, its clinical trials, its epidemiology, and its history. In addition to this body of evidence, it may be helpful to understand the physics of water.

The below article was published in the MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR by an Italian MD and senior research scientist at the University of Siena:
medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf

Because I'm a relative newbie, I may not be able to post a link. If you cannot see it, you can go to this medical journal's website at medscionit.com and look under its January 2007 issue. This is a very impressive article. I am curious if any of you are really brave enough to comment on it.


Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.
JG, what is your background in science and statistics? I ask, because you seem to believe in two sources (by your statements) where the authors demonstrated that either they are not functionally competant in either OR that they are perfectly willing to lie about the actual analyses of both. If, and I do not mean this offensively (I do not use the word ignorant as a perjorative unless the ignorance is by choice), you are functionally ignorant of both fields (based on what you have written and pointed to as your justification) I suggest that you should consider showing articles to people who are trained in analysing and interpreting the data in them before sending us to them - making you look bad.:)

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

...The below article was published in the MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR by an Italian MD and senior research scientist at the University of Siena:
medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf

....
Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.

Hello there... so Brave Sir Dana! You made it over here! Welcome, and I hope you stick around.

Sorry I have not gotten back to you, I've been busy with my actual life (and I should have logged off an hour ago). But I'm sure Orac will soon be answering all your questions.

This is in reference to:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-456470


Wow...this SILENCE is so loud. It is time to LEARN from homeopathy and be a real scientist.
Read this impressive article published in the MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR by an Italian MD and senior research scientist at the University of Siena:
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf (http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf)
Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.
Posted by: Dana Ullman, MPH (http://www.homeopathic.com/) | June 5, 2007 05:25 PM (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-456470)

I just noticed it, I haven't bothered to even check that blog reference, since I've only looked at Orac's first page. I see others have responded. (goes backs and reads what occured over the past week)... Hmmm... No, you did not answer any of my questions. You did say in this comment (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-451391)
As for Oscillococcinum, it is the 200C potency of the heart and liver of a duck (because ducks are known to be resevoirs of flu viruses...and 3 large clinical trials have confirmed its efficacy).

But I specifically asked for PERCENTAGES... You do know how to convert 200C to a percentage, right?

[JamesGully]

I do not answer really stupid questions like that. I'm more interest in controlled clinical trials. Are you? Are you or are you not interested in scientific experiments? It is like asking what percentage of matter vs. space is there inside an atomic bomb (that question is NOT the point of it).

And I'm still waiting for your critique of the CHEST study on COPD (the #4 reason that people in the US die).

I'm not as interested in theories as I am in controlled studies.

I'm also interested in the physics of water...and that article referenced above from MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR is very intriguing and is worthy of anyone who is serious about science and medicine. His references to the 1,000+ studies on HORMESIS is also important...but I doubt you are really interested in studies or science, but I hope you can prove me wrong. Really. Let's get serious. Avoid the name-calling...and the paternalistic "Sir Dana" stuff. You're embarrassing other people who would like to agree with you.

[EHLO]

James, I'm new to the homeopathy debate so had a read through the "Modern understanding of homeopathy" at www.homeopathic.com.

Under a section entitled "The Importance of Individualization" it states;


The way homeopaths learn what a homeopathic medicine will cure is through the use of experiments called "drug provings".In these homeopathic drug trials, researchers administer continuual doses of a substance to a healthy individual* until areaction to the substance is achieved.** The subject is asked to keep detailed record books of symptoms; additional symptoms are discovered through an interview process. The subject is encouraged to stop ingesting the substance once any particularly discomforting symptom manifests.



This statement implies that homeopathic treatments can reliably manifest predictable symptoms in test subjects, which would imply a definitive methodology for distinguishing a homeopathic remedy from a placebo that would satisfy the most ardent sceptic.

If such a test is not definitive, then it undermines the whole "drug proving" methodology and homeopathy itself. (By definitive I mean not having to resort to meta-analysis, and slightly above chance outcomes.)

If homeopaths base their medicines on "proving" then inducing symptoms homoeopathically must be nearly 100% reliable. Why is this not the case?

[Cuddles]

I'm also interested in the physics of water...and that article referenced above from MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR is very intriguing and is worthy of anyone who is serious about science and medicine.

No it isn't. It contains absolutely nothing of either science or medicine The entire article is wrong from start to finish. If you are really so interested in studies perhaps you would like to provide some instead of some vague philosophical nonsense from someone who clearly has no understanding of physics, chemistry of biology.

[jon]

No it isn't. It contains absolutely nothing of either science or medicine The entire article is wrong from start to finish. If you are really so interested in studies perhaps you would like to provide some instead of some vague philosophical nonsense from someone who clearly has no understanding of physics, chemistry of biology.

You forgot to mention philosophy - they got that wrong, too :rolleyes:

[flimflam_machine]

What kind of journal is that article from? It's remarkably unscientific: the second half of the text basically says "Here are lots of things that you don't know everything about... quantum physics, dark matter the basis of the mind etc.. You also don't know how homeopathy works, therefore it's probably works because of one of these things."

It's also misleading in that it suggests that conventional medicine is nothing but placebo.

...a hidden injection of morphine was found to correspond toan open injection of saline solution in full view of the patient (i.e. a placebo!) [46]. It would appear at least bizarre, to an unbiased and sufficiently open mind, that holders of “true science” and supporters of the Avogadro’s number evidence have not yet found an explanation for the singular situation in which the hidden administration of analgesic (i.e. true molecules, true matter) can have no effect at all!

In fact, the Nature paper quoted (#46) says that application of placebo has the same effect as a specific amount of morphine (8mg). Use more morphine (12mg) and you get greater analgesia than placebo alone, so fusty old conventional medicine does appear to work.

The only interesting part of the article was the reference to hormetic response to drugs since it would be the beginnings of a mechanism for homeopathy. Does anyone have any thoughts/evidence on the validity of the hormetic response and an explanation for why it appears.

[fls]

This is in reference to:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-456470

Oh my.

I just read this. I thought that the degree of hubris he was exhibiting indicated at least some understanding of the necessary science. But instead he chooses to beat you over the head with uncontrolled studies on arsenic (hint: you actually have to read the study to see that it was uncontrolled since the authors chose to advertise otherwise (another hint: a control group actually has to be comparable to the treatment group to be considered a control group))? The write-up, particularly in the second study on ANA titres, is almost laughably awful.

Is it really necessary to even bother with this?

Linda

[fls]

His references to the 1,000+ studies on HORMESIS is also important.

If it had ever been demonstrated that homeopathy has anything to do with hormesis, that would possibly be relevant.

To quote Joan Cusack from Working Girl - "Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna."

Linda

[flimflam_machine]

fls,

I thought the bit about hormesis was the only reasonable bit of the paper, although in no way does it constitute evidence. If the effect of drugs is reversed at very low (but non-zero) concentrations then it would fit in with what homeopathy claims to do. If hormesis is simply a U-shaped distribution of response to drugs according to concentration then it's no help at all.

And 1,000+ studies? As far as I can see the paper referenced about 5.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I appreciate good skeptical thinking, and yet, am I the only one who thinks that no one responded to the numerous basic science and clinical studies that Dana Ullman referenced?

Yes.

Am I the only one who think that Ullman also gave a good, solid critique of that questionably done "meta-analysis" that sought to compare 110 homeopathic and allopathic studies?

Yes.

Am I the only one who is surprised that even the skeptics who did this study found that the homeopathic studies had a larger number of higher percentage of higher quality studies than the allopathic studies (by THEIR own definition of high quality studies).

Yes. To find that the homoepthic community produces a high percentage of good quality studies simply requires avoiding most of homeopathy's published evidence.

Humility is a healthy scientific attitude.

And something that the homeopathic community entirely lacks, resting its case so completely on personal anecdotal experience.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

A more important question, in view of the claims that it only works if properly individualised, is: why do homoeopaths not object to OTC "homoeopathic" remedies sold to treat a particular condition?

Or any of the other fatal internal inconsistencies that we have pointed out to homeopaths at various times and from which they have run as fast as their little chicken legs can carry them.

But since we seem to have a live homeopath on the line at the moment, perhaps he can answer Mojo's question.

He can then tell us whether remedies are neutralised by airport X-ray scanners.

He can then tell us about 'grafting remedies' and whether he thinks that works.

Does he agree that during a homeopathic proving the people involve risk serious and long-term harm being caused?

For a laugh he can tell us whether either of these machines works;

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm

I have a number of follow-up questions about both machines, but let's start with the easy one first.

Hey, ho.

[fls]

fls,

I thought the bit about hormesis was the only reasonable bit of the paper, although in no way does it constitute evidence. If the effect of drugs is reversed at very low (but non-zero) concentrations then it would fit in with what homeopathy claims to do. If hormesis is simply a U-shaped distribution of response to drugs according to concentration then it's no help at all.

And 1,000+ studies? As far as I can see the paper referenced about 5.

They have simply hijacked the study of hormesis because there is a (very) superficial similarity (if you turn off the lights, squint your eyes, and tilt your head just so). And hormesis doesn't really find that the effects are reversed at low concentrations, but that the effect may be different in a way that may be characterized as positive or negative. However, that is still quite different from what homeopathy claims to do. In a way, the recognition of non-montonic (does not change in the same direction throughout) dose-response curves contradicts the principles of homeopathy. It tells you that you cannot predict the response at low doses based on the response at high doses - it has to be determined empirically.

Linda

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Oh my.

I just read this. ...snip for brevity...The write-up, particularly in the second study on ANA titres, is almost laughably awful.

Is it really necessary to even bother with this?

Linda

Only for entertainment, which is why when a bathroom remodel and getting up at the crack of dawn to get kid to marching band engagements, a couple of child dental appointments and life in general got in the way, I only checked Orac's main page.

I do not answer really stupid questions like that. I'm more interest in controlled clinical trials. Are you? Are you or are you not interested in scientific experiments? It is like asking what percentage of matter vs. space is there inside an atomic bomb (that question is NOT the point of it).....

I take that as an admission that you do not understand what a percentage is. The "%" is shorthand for "out of 100", cent coming from the Latin word for hundred. Just as you do not understand that "nano" is a word used for a discrete value of 10-9. Actually, the percentage of fissionable material is very pertinent to nuclear weapons --- just add another subject that you are clueless about.

Just to let you know that 200C translates to a percentage of (I may get the math wrong, corrections are welcome) to 10-399% (it is written out in full at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy2.htm). I believe that means that there may be one molecule of duck stuff in the amount of water that would exist on several dozen Earths.

Edit to add: I now need to go sand about 70 square feet of wood paneling to prep it for painting.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

For people who are skeptical of homeopathy, it is usually because you are unfamiliar with its body of evidence, including its basic science, its clinical trials, its epidemiology, and its history. In addition to this body of evidence, it may be helpful to understand the physics of water.

The below article was published in the MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR by an Italian MD and senior research scientist at the University of Siena:
medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf

Because I'm a relative newbie, I may not be able to post a link. If you cannot see it, you can go to this medical journal's website at medscionit.com and look under its January 2007 issue. This is a very impressive article. I am curious if any of you are really brave enough to comment on it.


Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.

Impressive in what sense? I'm always impressed by the ease with which homeopaths are convinced by the flimsiest and vaguest of arguments so long as it is spiced with a few long scientificke words.

I wonder that is why homeopaths are so easily deluded into buying those expensive "remedy" making devices. If your critical faculties prevent you from distinguishing a wacky sales pitch from fact then you are going to find anything with a few clever-sounding words impressive.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

They have simply hijacked the study of hormesis because there is a (very) superficial similarity (if you turn off the lights, squint your eyes, and tilt your head just so). And hormesis doesn't really find that the effects are reversed at low concentrations, but that the effect may be different in a way that may be characterized as positive or negative. However, that is still quite different from what homeopathy claims to do. In a way, the recognition of non-montonic (does not change in the same direction throughout) dose-response curves contradicts the principles of homeopathy. It tells you that you cannot predict the response at low doses based on the response at high doses - it has to be determined empirically.

Linda

And the crucial thing is that hormesis still presupposes that the active agent is still actually pesent at those low doses.

[Lothian]

But I specifically asked for PERCENTAGES... You do know how to convert 200C to a percentage, right?Is it
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %

I have made the number big to show how strong the solution is.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Just to let you know that 200C translates to a percentage of (I may get the math wrong, corrections are welcome) to 10-399% (it is written out in full at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy2.htm). I believe that means that there may be one molecule of duck stuff in the amount of water that would exist on several dozen Earths.

And the rest.

The point though, is that the whole terminology of "dilution" is (deliberately) misleading. Homeopaths pregressively replace (putatively) active ingredient with solvent. The rest of us call the process "rinsing". It's not very spooky and I find that when I rinse a coffee cup it is just cleaner than it was before rather than coming to contain super-potent essence of coffee.

[Mojo]

The rest of us call the process "rinsing". It's not very spooky and I find that when I rinse a coffee cup it is just cleaner than it was before rather than coming to contain super-potent essence of coffee.


I always make sure I tap all the crockery against a leather-bound book whenever I do the washing up. ;)

[fls]

And the crucial thing is that hormesis still presupposes that the active agent is still actually pesent at those low doses.

While I think focussing on the dilution factor provides us with an easy way to demonstrate the silliness to those who are naive wrt homeopathy, I think it should also be pointed out that the principles of homeopathy still have no scientific basis even if active ingredients are present.

Linda

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

While I think focussing on the dilution factor provides us with an easy way to demonstrate the silliness to those who are naive wrt homeopathy, I think it should also be pointed out that the principles of homeopathy still have no scientific basis even if active ingredients are present.

Linda


That's the thing with homeopathy: it's wrong in so many different ways that it's hard to to decide where to start first.

[fls]

That's the thing with homeopathy: it's wrong in so many different ways that it's hard to to decide where to start first.

I know. When the woos don't toss us a bone every once in a while, we start chewing on ourselves. :)

Linda

[fls]

Is it
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %

I have made the number big to show how strong the solution is.

The optical illusion that creates is kinda cool.

Linda

[fuelair]

I do not answer really stupid questions like that. I'm more interest in controlled clinical trials. Are you? Are you or are you not interested in scientific experiments? It is like asking what percentage of matter vs. space is there inside an atomic bomb (that question is NOT the point of it).

And I'm still waiting for your critique of the CHEST study on COPD (the #4 reason that people in the US die).

I'm not as interested in theories as I am in controlled studies.

I'm also interested in the physics of water...and that article referenced above from MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR is very intriguing and is worthy of anyone who is serious about science and medicine. His references to the 1,000+ studies on HORMESIS is also important...but I doubt you are really interested in studies or science, but I hope you can prove me wrong. Really. Let's get serious. Avoid the name-calling...and the paternalistic "Sir Dana" stuff. You're embarrassing other people who would like to agree with you.

Honest, he's not embarassing me at all! Though I think someone here should be embarassed passing this off as true science (the key phrase is double-blind - if it "can't be tested that way" then it is not science. You are free to call it something else, I like pseudo-science for it myself).

[fuelair]

I do not answer really stupid questions like that. I'm more interest in controlled clinical trials. Are you? Are you or are you not interested in scientific experiments? It is like asking what percentage of matter vs. space is there inside an atomic bomb (that question is NOT the point of it).

And I'm still waiting for your critique of the CHEST study on COPD (the #4 reason that people in the US die).

I'm not as interested in theories as I am in controlled studies.

I'm also interested in the physics of water...and that article referenced above from MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR is very intriguing and is worthy of anyone who is serious about science and medicine. His references to the 1,000+ studies on HORMESIS is also important...but I doubt you are really interested in studies or science, but I hope you can prove me wrong. Really. Let's get serious. Avoid the name-calling...and the paternalistic "Sir Dana" stuff. You're embarrassing other people who would like to agree with you.
Also, I believe you mean the chemistry of water - the physics of water is the physics of almost all liquids - thus hydraulics.

[JamesGully]

Understanding water is not a simple subject. I recommend reading the work of Rustum Roy, PhD, professor of material sciences at Penn State University and head of a material sciences lab that the ISI considers to be the best in the world. Besides having almost 700 papers published, he has had 13 papers published in NATURE.

Because I'm still a newbie to this list, I cannot provide a full URL for a recent article. Just add the www to it:

rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf

Dr. Roy will have another even more important article published shortly, though I wonder how many of you are serious enough to follow the science.

As for double-blind research, the arsenic study mentioned previously was a randomized double-blind trial for the GROUP A. This is undeniable. GROUP B choose not to be given a chance for a placebo, and if you wish, you can ignore this group. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that both the people in GROUP A who were given a homeopathic dose of arsenic and the people in GROUP B who were also given this medicine experienced a significant increase in certain detoxifying liver enzymes, while people in GROUP A who were given a placebo didn't.

The COPD study was another great trial, as was the severe sepsis trial, both of which were conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital.

The amazing feature of skeptics of homeopathy is that you assume that homeopaths have some magical power that other people don't seem to have and just by "magic" those people get better. An easier (and more probable) explanation is that nanopharmacology works.

I'm glad that some of you appreciate HORMESIS. If so, why do you think that medicine is ignoring it, despite the 1,000+ studies? Is homeo-phobia real?

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Oh my.

I just read this. I thought that the degree of hubris he was exhibiting indicated at least some understanding of the necessary science. But instead he chooses to beat you over the head with uncontrolled studies on arsenic (hint: you actually have to read the study to see that it was uncontrolled since the authors chose to advertise otherwise (another hint: a control group actually has to be comparable to the treatment group to be considered a control group))? The write-up, particularly in the second study on ANA titres, is almost laughably awful.

Is it really necessary to even bother with this?

Linda

Another reason is that Dana Ullman (despite his lack of math skills and understanding of basic science) has set himself up as a big homeopathy expert. He has written several books... and does practice medicine without a license. From http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk11.html According to Ollivier, Dana Ullman, an advisory board member of alternative-medicine institutes at Harvard's and Columbia's schools of medicine, is a leading spokesman for homeopathy.

Do a Google search on homeopathy, and his name pops up. Though I am quite fond of this google find: http://www.dcscience.net/quack.html where it says
But they completely ruin their case by including quite barmy homilies about homeopathy (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water2.php) (and here (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WaterRemembers.php)), water structure (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SO_water.php) and traditional chinese medicine (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SO_holhealth.php). There is also an amazing piece of sheer pseudo-scientific nonsense, "Homeopathic Medicine is Nanopharmacology (http://www.dcscience.net/Homeopathic%20Medicine%20is%20Nanopharmacology)" by Dana Ullman (though elsewhere on the site, nanotechnology gets a bad press).

He is the American equivalent (or fancies himself as such) of the UK's Peter Fisher: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=110 ...
... or Lionel Milgrom (who is really not terribly observent): http://www.badscience.net/?p=341

(note if you have an hour to spare, the video of Dr. Goldacre debating Dr. Fisher at http://www.badscience.net/?p=339 is quite entertaining!)

Anytime his lack of answering direct questions (like the percentage of duck bits in some flu nostrum), lack of understanding basic science and general evasiveness can be brought to light is not only entertaining, but shows the exactly how the reality of homeopathy is so incredibly shallow.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

...The COPD study was another great trial, as was the severe sepsis trial, both of which were conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital.
...

In the sepsis trial after 180 days 75% of the "homeopathic" patients survived, versus 50% of the "placebo" patients. Since the total number in the study was 35 people... it was not that big of a deal.

Do you know any math at all? We have figured out that you don't do percentages, so I guess basic statistics is just beyond any comprehension.

The conclusion I got from both papers is that if you are traveling try not to get sick in either Graz or Vienna while in Austria (stay in Salzburg, it may be touristy, but it is a nice touristy!... though the camping grounds were a bit too close to the train tracks).

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The amazing feature of skeptics of homeopathy is that you assume that homeopaths have some magical power that other people don't seem to have and just by "magic" those people get better.

Not at all. What we find is a uniform insistence on taking the credit for spontaneous recoveries and active misrepresentation of what actually happened with cases.

Continuing to reiterate the findings of discredited and weak studies does not help your case.

Nor does your failure to answer some simple, direct questions.

Here they are again- numbered for ease of reference.

1. Can you tell us whether remedies are neutralised by airport X-ray scanners?

2. Can you tell us about 'grafting remedies' and whether he thinks that works.

3. Do you tell agree that during a homeopathic proving the people involve risk serious and long-term harm being caused?

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm


I'll add another now;

5. Can you tell us whether "constitutional remedies" work?

p.s. It is neither big nor clever to invent new words to cover up the holes in your philosophy. "Nano-", as has been pointed out, has a specific meaning. Describing what you practise as "nanopharmacology" is not technically accurate and is obviously a deliberate attempt to obscure the underlying reality. "Homeopathy" is quite sufficiently accurate a description for what you claim to do and we don't need to adopt any more of self-aggrandising jargon from water and sugar retailers.

Interestingly, by wanting to introduce this term you quietly sidestep the fact that all this dilution/solvent substitution business is a complete side issue, as you know doubt know, being an ardent devotee of Hahnemann. The central and primary false conception is "Like cures like". The dilution process only arose to stop you killing people directly with your toxic remedies.

Typical homeopathy, introduce a new false concept to conceal another. If you read the homeopathic literature it is nothing but a sequence of such ad hoc inventions. Clearly some mechanism for homeopathy would be required if it worked. Since it does not, and the trials clearly say this no matter how much its advocates pretend otherwise, we can sweep away this whole fantastical house of cards.

It is such a pity that some people waste their lives shackled to these lies. Presumably it is this personal investment that makes them so resistant to rational dissuasion.

[MRC_Hans]

Thaks to Mojo for notifying me of this thread. Seems for once I'm not too late to joun the fun.

Understanding water is not a simple subject. I recommend reading the work of Rustum Roy, PhD, professor of material sciences at Penn State University and head of a material sciences lab that the ISI considers to be the best in the world. Besides having almost 700 papers published, he has had 13 papers published in NATURE.

Is he an authority on medicine?


Because I'm still a newbie to this list, I cannot provide a full URL for a recent article. Just add the www to it:

rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf

Dr. Roy will have another even more important article published shortly, though I wonder how many of you are serious enough to follow the science.


Water physics is indeed a very interesting area. The big question here is what relevance it has to homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies are prepared using both water and alcohol, and they are stored in lactose. Any physics explaining homeopathy must also include properties of alcohol and lactose.

Finally: We can study the good doctor's papers, and I'm sure several of us will be able to understand them, but you, Mr. Ulmann, are the one who makes a claim. If Dr. Roy's studies are in support of your claim, it is your task to explain how.

As for double-blind research, the arsenic study mentioned previously was a randomized double-blind trial for the GROUP A. This is undeniable. GROUP B choose not to be given a chance for a placebo, and if you wish, you can ignore this group. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that both the people in GROUP A who were given a homeopathic *snip*

Both? BOTH?? Two subjects? DO you call that a randomized double blind study???? Excuse me, but do you know anything at all about statistics?


The amazing feature of skeptics of homeopathy is that you assume that homeopaths have some magical power that other people don't seem to have and just by "magic" those people get better. An easier (and more probable) explanation is that nanopharmacology works.


Well, since you cannot explain how it works (you cannot even come close), it might as well be magic. Nevertheless, the above is a straw-man. We do not believe in magic, remember? The easier, and more probable, explanation is that homeopathy is neither magic not nanopharmacology (you don't support things by inventing new scientific-sounding words), but that it simply doesn't work.

I'm glad that some of you appreciate HORMESIS. If so, why do you think that medicine is ignoring it, despite the 1,000+ studies? Is homeo-phobia real?

Ignore? Is 1,000+ plus studies the same as ignoring in your book?

Hans

[fls]

As for double-blind research, the arsenic study mentioned previously was a randomized double-blind trial for the GROUP A. This is undeniable. GROUP B choose not to be given a chance for a placebo, and if you wish, you can ignore this group. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that both the people in GROUP A who were given a homeopathic dose of arsenic and the people in GROUP B who were also given this medicine experienced a significant increase in certain detoxifying liver enzymes, while people in GROUP A who were given a placebo didn't.

Now you're just making stuff up. Yes, parts of the studies included a group that was divided into a treatment arm and a control arm. However, the claims of effectiveness are based only on the results from the uncontrolled groups. The first arsenic study did not say it was randomized, and the description of the assignment of medication in the second trial is specifically of a non-random assignment. The liver enzymes were not measured in GROUP A, so your statement about differences in liver enzymes is a fabrication.

The COPD study was another great trial, as was the severe sepsis trial, both of which were conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital.

The results of the sepsis trial would be considered negative if it had been analyzed by conventional standards.

The COPD study is an isolated finding, and at the very least would have to be replicated (preferably not by a team that is heavily invested in the outcome) before one could even begin to suggest that it supports the idea that a sugar pill exposed to a particular water influenced the outcome in this particular situation. It still would not provide evidence for homeopathy for reasons that I provided (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2622498#post2622498)earlier in this thread.

Linda

[JJM]

@ MRC Hans post #82

Rustum Roy is a retired "material scientist." I tried to read the cited paper; which is quite long and full of jargon. It is pure speculation on water memory, proving mothing. Half-way through, I skipped to the "Conclusion" which claims the paper suggests how to test the speculations.

Roy's argument begins with the lifetime of a hydrogen bond in pure water being 1 microsecond. Then, he argues (i.e., does not demonstrate) that clusters of water molecules may last longer. Then he argues that water clusters may form around a dissolved molecule, and remain after the foreign molecule is removed.

Let us suppose that the cluster lives 1 million times longer than a particular bond. That means the homeopath has one second to deliver a product to a victim; which is not even enough time to prepare said product. To provide a shelf-life of one day, the cluster has to live 84.6 billion times longer than an H-bond- and that is not much of a shelf-life (we like to see five years).

In short, for water to have a usable memory, the lifetime of water clusters must be MUCH greater than is indicated by research.

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, plus water clusters must be complex enough to hold unique information about several thousand different compounts, several of them highly complex *). And these water clusters must be sturdy enough to transfer their information into new clusters during successive potentization steps. And once you have shown that, you still need to explain the alcohol and lactose connection. AND once you have done that, all you have done is made it possible that potentized remedies might have some biological effect. You then have to prove that like cures like.

Hans

*) IIRR, The most complex water cluster discovered so far consists of 64 water molecules.

Hans

[fls]

Another reason is that Dana Ullman (despite his lack of math skills and understanding of basic science) has set himself up as a big homeopathy expert. He has written several books... and does practice medicine without a license.

Does any of what we say here trickle down to those people who need to hear it?

I realize that this is the Million Dollar Question (ha ha, I made a funny), but can we really accomplish anything here in some way that gives us a reasonable return for our effort? I think my perspective on the nature of this debate in Cyberworld is much narrower than yours and some of the others here. And I don't know the extent to which the Cyberworld debate impacts the Realworld debate.

Linda

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Does any of what we say here trickle down to those people who need to hear it?

At least to some. This really was the last straw for me. I think I now at last understand why homeopathy is so incredibly persistent. It's persistency is the one thing that had me believe that "there had to be more to it than the placebo effect". I've been readin over the term 'emotional investment' without a second thought until it quite suddenly got stuck in my head and made me remember my experiences with homeopathy.

Healers in general (whether they are doctors or quaks) have a high social standing. Their patients concider them invaluable people in their lives. Homeopathy is an easy way for a person to achieve this standing. Once they have a stable circle of patients who keep telling them they feel better because of their treatments they will put themselves at the same level as a doctor. Because scientific research disproves the efficacy of their remedies they also start to think they know more then conventional doctors because those doctors can't even prove let alone understand how homeopathy cures people while they clearly see that they do. It's really not that hard to simply ignore or put down good scientific research when personal experience is valued above scientific research as a way of life.

Now imagine you're a 50 year old housewife with no higher education and you got all that. What happens when you give that up? From a noble and deeply spiritual healer battleing against sickness and prejudice of scientific researchers you are suddenly reduced to a deluded old woman who sells bottles of water, with virtually no chance of doing anything in the future that comes even close to the glory of her former position.

I tried to explain to my homepathic therapist that based on all the studies I had read that I could no longer believe homeopathy was effective, and that we both had to accept the concequences of that. I had to stop taking medicine, and since she always just wanted to make people's lives better, should close her shop. Well, I just kinda got shut out.

[JJM]

Does any of what we say here trickle down to those people who need to hear it?

{snip} LindaProbably not directly; but I have learned a lot from many of you. If you recall the movie A Fistful od Dollars "Sometimes a man's life depends on a mere scrap of information."

Sometimes that info can be transferred to the curious; but almost never to the believers.

[Snow]

I have made the number big to show how strong the solution is.
That reminds me of the joke somebody posted here a short time back - "Did you hear about the homoepath who forgot to take his medicine? He died of an overdose".

[fuelair]

Understanding water is not a simple subject. I recommend reading the work of Rustum Roy, PhD, professor of material sciences at Penn State University and head of a material sciences lab that the ISI considers to be the best in the world. Besides having almost 700 papers published, he has had 13 papers published in NATURE.

Because I'm still a newbie to this list, I cannot provide a full URL for a recent article. Just add the www to it:

rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf

Dr. Roy will have another even more important article published shortly, though I wonder how many of you are serious enough to follow the science.

As for double-blind research, the arsenic study mentioned previously was a randomized double-blind trial for the GROUP A. This is undeniable. GROUP B choose not to be given a chance for a placebo, and if you wish, you can ignore this group. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that both the people in GROUP A who were given a homeopathic dose of arsenic and the people in GROUP B who were also given this medicine experienced a significant increase in certain detoxifying liver enzymes, while people in GROUP A who were given a placebo didn't.

The COPD study was another great trial, as was the severe sepsis trial, both of which were conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital.

The amazing feature of skeptics of homeopathy is that you assume that homeopaths have some magical power that other people don't seem to have and just by "magic" those people get better. An easier (and more probable) explanation is that nanopharmacology works.

I'm glad that some of you appreciate HORMESIS. If so, why do you think that medicine is ignoring it, despite the 1,000+ studies? Is homeo-phobia real?

Why in dogs' name would I believe homicid - oops I mean homeopaths have magic - though I will grant only magic could explain this male porcine cleaning solution ever working. Chemically, biologically and physics way - it cannot - and no properly designed and monitored experiment could/has shown any signs that it does. 1000+ (I still only remember a count of 5 or so- all bad - but feel free to cite the others) poorly done studies = nothing.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Water physics is indeed a very interesting area. The big question here is what relevance it has to homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies are prepared using both water and alcohol, and they are stored in lactose. Any physics explaining homeopathy must also include properties of alcohol and lactose.

You also need to be an expert on lactose tablets next to other lactose tablets and having their powers magically "grafted" onto them, while avoiding being "grafted" with the magic powers of some other adjacent lactose tablets.

For the uninititaed in these magic arts, see;

http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/pro_glossary.html

[Mojo]

Yes, plus water clusters must be complex enough to hold unique information about several thousand different compounts, several of them highly complex *). And these water clusters must be sturdy enough to transfer their information into new clusters during successive potentization steps. And once you have shown that, you still need to explain the alcohol and lactose connection. AND once you have done that, all you have done is made it possible that potentized remedies might have some biological effect. You then have to prove that like cures like.


Hmm. That sounds like a lot of work.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to first establish whether homoeopathy works and only worry about a mechanism if it can be established that it works?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Hmm. That sounds like a lot of work.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to first establish whether homoeopathy works and only worry about a mechanism if it can be established that it works?

Don't get me started on "long-time, mass-existing", or whatever Kumar's precise formula was!

[Cuddles]

Roy's argument begins with the lifetime of a hydrogen bond in pure water being 1 microsecond. Then, he argues (i.e., does not demonstrate) that clusters of water molecules may last longer. Then he argues that water clusters may form around a dissolved molecule, and remain after the foreign molecule is removed.

Of course, this raises the problem of how to get the dissolved molecule out. Even if we allow that water forms clusters around molecules and even if we allow them to have lifetimes billions of times greater than that actually observed, it is not possible to remove the molecule without taking the cluster apart, which means that either the dissolved molecules must still be there, which is clearly not the case, or the clusters cannot survive removal of the molecules. Either way, homeopathy fails.

[Mojo]

Don't get me started on "long-time, mass-existing", or whatever Kumar's precise formula was!


"Mass existing in well distributed people since long with least adversities".

You just have to think bit dynamically. ;)

[Michael C]

Understanding water is not a simple subject. I recommend reading the work of Rustum Roy, PhD, professor of material sciences at Penn State University and head of a material sciences lab that the ISI considers to be the best in the world. Besides having almost 700 papers published, he has had 13 papers published in NATURE.

http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf

(fixed the URL for you)

In his conclusion, Roy states:

The connection of the imprinting, via succussion and possible epitaxy, of the different specific homeopathic remedies on the structure of water eliminates the primitive criticism of homeopathy being untenable due to the absence of any remnant of the molecules.

Here's my question for JamesGully:

If we accept that water can retain the imprint of whatever was dissolved in it, how can the homeopathic laboratories be sure that the remedies they prepare only contain the imprint of the substance they use at the start of the dilution process, and do not contain imprints from any other substance?

The water they are using for each successive dilution must be full of imprints of many substances: the water has been in contact with the metal of the pipes it flowed through, whatever gases are in the air of the lab, the glass of the vessel which contains it, whatever. There is no known way to test what substances have left their "imprint" on a sample of water, so the laboratories can never prove that the water they are using for the dilutions is "pure", i.e. completely free from imprints.

Who can prove that the final remedy does not in fact contain high homeopathic potencies of duck's urine, copper, nitrogen or other substances with which the water has been in contact?

[Mojo]

In his conclusion, Roy states: The connection of the imprinting, via succussion and possible epitaxy, of the different specific homeopathic remedies on the structure of water eliminates the primitive criticism of homeopathy being untenable due to the absence of any remnant of the molecules.


This strawman has been mentioned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53385) on the forum before. The abstract (http://www.matrice-technology.com/mri/abstract.php?pid=388) of the article says: The most telling argument is the core paradigm of materials science, that properties of a phase are determined by structure, not composition. Hence the single argument used against homeopathy, that because there are no molecules of the remedy left in the final product it cannot be different, is completely negated.


This is not, of course, "the single argument used against homeopathy". The main argument against homoeopathy is that it doesn't work better than placebo.

Incidentally, the editor-in-chief of that journal is a chap called Rustum Roy.

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

I'm just curious, how long do you think homeopathy will remain in existence? If it's going to be accepted that it's disproven, every alternative healer with homeopathic medicine in his/her arsenal is going to have to explain why his/her powers or insights were always perscribing ineffective remedies yet are still OK for everything else... Like asking questions about your relationship, future, vacation, job, dead relative etc.

[Victor Meldrew]

Not to mention an offer of $1m for carrying out such an experiment (assuming homeopathy works, of course...) I mean, if someone offered me a million bucks research funding in exchange for carrying out one simple experiment, I wouldn't really care how 'silly' what they wanted me to do was...hell, if I was asked to wear a clown outfit while working, my response would be 'what type of shoes' :D

Maybe homeopathic research is better funded, though? Or Dana doubts that homeopathy would pass such a 'silly' challenge.

Forget the money: they already make plenty selling diluted products. But the prestige...and just imagine, if you could prove to all the skeptics that they were wrong.....with just one experiment....that would be priceless, wouldn't it?

Can you imagine the worldwide publicity that it would generate, being the first to prove James Randi wrong?

If they really believe it works, they would jump at the chance. Which just shows that they are more than happy to take money of people fraudulently, selling them a product that doesn't work.....they are low life.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Is it just my active imagination, or does this actually look like another Dana Ullman sockpuppet:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-458678 ?

I kind of figured out in a feeble way why he chose the 'nym of "JamesGully" here. It seems to be something about "Aims for Gullible". Anyway, just that "Gully" needs to be gullible.

[JamesGully]

Wow...I seem to have stirred up the hornet's nest. What is interesting is how few people on this list seem knowledgeable about homeopathy at all. Usually, a good scientist is humble about he/she knows and doesn't know and realizes that there are many mysteries of this world. I hope that people on this list maintain a healthy humility, and I hope that this discussion encourages you to read homeopathic literature, both the theoretical and the experimental, so that you can speak or write with greater knowledge than I see on this list to date.

Further, the best scientists will take the true scientific attitude to the next step and may experiment with the subject themselves. I encourage you to try homeopathic Arnica (commonly for shock of injury; for injury to soft tissue) or homeopathic Oscillococcinum (for flu symptoms). Because homeopathic medicines are reasonably safe, there isn't too much about which to worry.

For the record, I like the term "nanopharmacology" for a couple of reasons. First, the word "nano" refers to "at least a billionth" and most homeopathic medicines are in this range or further. In actual fact, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies in the US are at or under the 9X potency (which is in the billionth range). In popular parlance, the word nano has come to mean "very small and yet powerful," and as such, this is an apt description of homeopathic medicines.

For those of you who know the origin of the word "nano," you know that it derives from the word DWARF or DWARFISH, and the exceedingly small doses that are used in homeopathy are obviously dwarfish.

Rather than discuss the clinical research literature or the basic science literature in homeopathy, let's first talk about more fundamental issues in homeopathy...how they may work. First...I do not know a single physician or patient who didn't take aspirin just because s/he didn't know its mechanism of action (and we only began to understand this just 20 or so years ago).

Likewise, just because we don't yet fully understand how homeopathic medicines work doesn't mean that they don't nor does any disproven theory about the mechanism of action disprove clinical efficacy (we can have this discussion at another time).

Let me also suggest that people on this list try to avoid the knee-jerk anti-homeopathic reactions that you've used in the past. Read what I've written below, find and read some or all of the references, and consider the fact that some or all of what is written below may actually be true.

When you consider that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century primarily due to its significant successes in treating epidemics of cholera and typhoid, it seems unlikely that the "placebo response" is an adequate explanation for these successes, especially since these successes were observed all over the world. Other types of MDs, including the allopathic, the naturopathic, the eclectic physicians, osteopaths, or chiropractors, didn't experience similar successes. (For the record, medical historians acknowledge these facts. Are there any medical historians out there? William Rothstein, PhD. is one of many leading and living sources)

Rather than assuming that homeopaths had some magical powers, it is more likely to assume that their medicines were effective.

The renowned astronomer Johann Kepler once said, “Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

The fact that living organisms have some truly remarkable sensitivity is no controversy. The challenging question that remains is: how does the medicine become imprinted into the water and how does the homeopathic process of dilution with succussion increase the medicine’s power? Although we do not know precisely the answer to this question, some new research may help point the way.

The newest and most intriguing way to explain how homeopathic medicines may work derives from some sophisticated modern technology. Scientists at several universities and hospitals in France and Belgium have discovered that the vigorous shaking of the water in glass bottles causes extremely small amounts of silica fragments or “chips” to fall into the water (Demangeat, Gries, Poitevin, 2004). Perhaps these “silica chips” may help to store the information in the water, with each medicine that is initially placed in the water creating its own pharmacological effect.

Further, the micro-bubbles and the “nano-bubbles” that are caused by the shaking may burst and thereby produce microenvironments of higher temperature and pressure. Several studies by chemists and physicists have revealed increased release of heat from water in which homeopathic medicines are prepared, even when the repeated process of dilutions should suggest that there are no molecules remaining of the original medicinal substance (Elia and Niccoli, 1999; Elia, Baiano, Napoli, 2004; Rey, 2003).

Also, a group of highly respected scientists have confirmed that the vigorous shaking involved with making homeopathic medicines changes the pressure in the water that is akin to water being at 10,000 feet in altitude (Roy, Tiller, Bell, 2005). These world-renown scientists have verified how the homeopathic process of using double-distilled water and then diluting and shaking the medicine in a sequential fashion changes the structure of water (Roy, Tiller, Bell, 2005).

One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave. However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long!

As for the questions from "Badly shaven monkey"...I've seen some grafting of homeopathic medicines seem to work sometimes, but this is not any more weird that a magnet magnetizing previously unmagnetized iron. As for X-ray in airports affecting homeopathic medicines, many people are fearful of X-rays but it is NOT conclusive that they neutralize homeopathics. As for those machines...no comment.

Finally, please remember that homeopathic manufacturers use a double-distilled water. We start with a relatively clean slate.

REFERENCES:
Demangeat, J.-L, Gries, P, Poitevin, B, Droesbeke J.-J, Zahaf, T, Maton, F, Pierart, C, Muller, RN, Low-Field NMR Water Proton Longitudinal Relaxation in Ultrahighly Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Silica-Lactose Prepared in Glass Material for Pharmaceutical Use, Applied Magnetic Resonance, 26, 2004:465-481.

Elia, V, and Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.

Elia, V, Baiano, S, Duro, I, Napoli, E, Niccoli, M, Nonatelli, L. Permanent Physio-chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Homeopathic Medicines, Homeopathy, 93, 2004:144-150.

Rey, L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74.

Roy, Rustum, Tiller, William A., Bell, Iris, Hoover, M. Richard. The Structure of Liquid Water: Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy, Materials Research Innovations. 9,4, December 2005. (Rustom Roy has had 13 papers published in NATURE; Tiller was head of the material sciences dept at Stanford for over a decade; Bell is an MD, PhD, homeopath. Quite an impressive team. Roy's newest research provides experimental evidence that shows specific differences between one homeopathic medicine and another...and one potency and another. More later on this...

[Mojo]

Rather than discuss the clinical research literature or the basic science literature in homeopathy, let's first talk about more fundamental issues in homeopathy...how they may work.


Why waste time and effort trying to explain an effect that may be non-existant?

What could possibly be a "more fundamental issue" with respect to a treatment than whether or not it actually works?

[Mojo]

I encourage you to try homeopathic Arnica (commonly for shock of injury; for injury to soft tissue)


I don't think I'll bother. Others seem to have tried it already:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9820349

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12562974

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

...For the record, I like the term "nanopharmacology" for a couple of reasons. First, the word "nano" refers to "at least a billionth" and most homeopathic medicines are in this range or further. In actual fact, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies in the US are at or under the 9X potency (which is in the billionth range). In popular parlance, the word nano has come to mean "very small and yet powerful," and as such, this is an apt description of homeopathic medicines....

Wrong. Most "homeopathic" stuff is at solutions far more diluted than 10-9. They are usually something ridiculous like 30C or your influenza remedy of 200C of duck stuff. Next week I am going to a function (our sons attend the same high school) at the house of a top-notch nanotechnology researcher (who has excitedly described how one researcher he knows has managed to use these little machines to deliver precise doses of medications to tumors), I will try to remember to relay your opinions on homeopathy as being "nanopharmacology". I am sure it will be quite amusing at your expense (which is one of the reasons I would really like to see you present a paper at a nano conference (http://www.nanotech-now.com/events-2007.htm)!).

You really do not understand simple mathematics at all, do you?

As far as your references go... the Roy Rustum was discussed in this very thread. Did you miss it? Also, Rey's "Thermoluminescence" paper has been the subject of many threads on JREF. Take the time to use the Search function to read how that was disassembled.

Oh, and one paper by someone who actually wants homeopathy to work is really not sufficient (author bias). It really does not count until the research has been replicated. Do you understand what that means? It seems that those who want homeopathy to work tend to create data that supports them... but when the controls are tightened and bias essentially removed homeopathy only works as well as a placebo.

[Mojo]

What is interesting is how few people on this list seem knowledgeable about homeopathy at all.

...

For the record, I like the term "nanopharmacology" for a couple of reasons. First, the word "nano" refers to "at least a billionth" and most homeopathic medicines are in this range or further. In actual fact, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies in the US are at or under the 9X potency (which is in the billionth range). I'm amazed that you are ignorant of the common use of remedies at 6X. In popular parlance, the word nano has come to mean "very small and yet powerful," and as such, this is an apt description of homeopathic medicines. In other words, you're using it to try to give homoeopathy a spurious appearence of effectiveness and science (wow, look at that long word!).

I suggest that, if you must use it, you should only use "nanopharmacology" for remedies of around 9X, and use the appropriate prefixes for other potencies.