A lot of people today are confused about what homeopathy is (and isn't), and this situation is not helped by the skeptics of homeopathy who go to incredible extents to exaggerate and misconstrue what homeopathic medicine is and who commonly provide misinformation about it. It is more than a tad ironic that these "skeptics" who hold themselves out as "defenders of medical science" have exhibited an embarrassingly poor scientific attitude when evaluating what homeopathy is and what the scientific evidence does and doesn't say about it.
Because many skeptics of homeopathy today indulge in spreading misinformation about homeopathy, this blog is addressed at setting the record straight and is packed with references to confirm the veracity of what is being asserted here.
First, to clarify, advocating for or using homeopathic medicines does not preclude appreciation for or use of selective conventional medical treatment. Advocates of homeopathy simply honor the Hippocratic tradition of "First, do no harm" and therefore seek to explore and utilize safer methods before resorting to more risky treatments. This perspective has historical and international roots, and it is thus no surprise that American health care which has been so resistant to homeopathic and natural therapies in its mainstream institutions is presently ranked 37th in the world in the performance of its health care system.(1) In comparison, the number one ranked country in the world is France, a country in which around 40 percent of the population uses homeopathic medicines and around 30 percent of its family physicians prescribe them (2).
The Evidence IS There
The fact that homeopathy became extremely popular during the 19th century primarily because of its impressive successes in treating the infectious disease epidemics that raged during that time is a fact that is totally ignored by skeptics.(3)(4)(5) It is highly unlikely that a placebo response is the explanation for homeopathy's notable successes in treating epidemics of cholera, yellow fever, scarlet fever, typhoid, pneumonia, or influenza. Skeptics are wonderfully clever in trying to make up stories and excuses for the good and often amazing results that people get from homeopathic medicines. Most often, however, they simply say that "old news is no news," as they brag about not learning from the past as though this is a good thing.
There are more than 150 placebo controlled clinical studies, most of which have shown positive results, either compared with a placebo or compared with a conventional drug.(6-10)
If that were not enough, studies testing the effects of homeopathic medicines on cell cultures, plants, animals, physics experiments, and chemistry trials have shown statistically significant effects. (11-16) Needless to say, the placebo effect in these basic science studies is virtually non-existent, while the effects from homeopathic doses are significant and sometimes substantial.
Skeptics are virulently silent on the entire field of hormesis (the multidisciplinary science of evaluating the power of small doses of varied biological systems) and its thousands of studies in a wide variety of scientific disciplines. (17)(18) This silence on hormesis is completely understandable because their acknowledgement of this body of evidence obliterates much of their criticisms of homeopathy. The doses of homeopathic medicines that are commonly sold in health food stores and pharmacies throughout the world are in a similar low dosage range to the thousands of hormesis studies on low-dose effects. It is very odd that skeptics ignore the thousands of studies in this field, and yet, these same skeptics repeat their embarrassingly uninformed mantra of "where is the research?" It is indeed no wonder that these skeptics are often referred to as "denialists" rather than skeptics.
It is readily acknowledged that the pharmacological process of making homeopathic medicines is often misunderstood or inadequately understood. Homeopathic medicines are made with a specific process, called potentization, that is unique to homeopathy. Each medicine is made in double-distilled water in a glass test-tube, diluted in a 1:10 or 1:100 solution that is vigorously shaken 40 or more times. Then, this process of dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking) is repeated 3, 6, 12, 30, 200, 1,000, or more times. Although one would think that one is diluting out whatever was in the original solution, the immense worldwide experience using homeopathic medicines over the past 200 years proves otherwise.
There is a body of intriguing but not yet fully verified theories about how homeopathic medicines work. These theories are too technical for this article, though I sincerely hope that the "good skeptics" out there will work to explore and help figure out the many mysteries that may explain homeopathy, rather than repeat the old reactionary mantra that "it cannot work."
For instance, the "silica hypothesis" is particularly intriguing, especially in light of the fact that approximately 6 parts per million of "silica fragments" or "chips" are known to fall off the walls of glass vial during the shaking process. In addition, the shaking process generates nanobubbles and transient localized regions of high pressure topping 10,000 atmospheres that have been hypothesized to alter the water in a significant and persistent way.(19)
Because a homeopathic medicine is selected for its unique ability to cause the specific pattern or syndrome of symptoms that it is known to cause in overdose, a living organism has a hypersensitivity to even extremely small doses of the correctly chosen homeopathic medicine. Just as a "C" note of a piano is hypersensitive to other "C" notes, living organisms are hypersensitive to extremely small doses of medicines that are made from substances that cause the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing. This ancient principle, "like cures like," was heralded by the Oracle at Delphi, the Bible, and various Eastern cultures, and the fact that modern-day immunology and allergy treatments derive from the primary principle of homeopathy, "the law of similars," provides additional substantiation to this system of medicine. Conventional allergy treatment and vaccination are two of the very few conventional medical treatments that do something to augment immune response, and yet, both of these treatments derive from the homeopathic principle of similars.
Actually, a better description of this principle of similars is the "principle of resonance," which any student of music knows has both power and hypersensitivity. The additional wisdom of this homeopathic principle is that its use leads to the prescription of medicines that mimic, rather than that suppress, the symptoms and the innate intelligence of the human body. Because homeopathic medicines are prescribed for their ability to mimic the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing, it is no wonder that people find that these medicines augment immune competence and improve body and mind health.
In this light, homeopathy can and should be considered a type of "medical biomimicry" and a "resonance medicine."
Homeopaths may not yet adequately understand precisely how their medicines work, but the body of historical and present-day evidence and experience is simply too significant to ignore. The fact that so many highly respected people and cultural heroes over the past 200 years have used and advocated for homeopathy provides additional evidence for this medical system. Some of these cultural heroes include eleven U.S. Presidents, six popes, JD Rockefeller, Charles Darwin, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, and scores of literary greats, corporate leaders, sports superstars, world-class musicians, and monarchs from virtually every European country.(20)
It is also important to acknowledge that hundreds of thousands, even millions, of medical doctors learned conventional medicine but have used homeopathic medicines in conjunction with or (commonly) as replacement for conventional medicines. In comparison, the number of medical professionals who have trained in homeopathy and then stopped using these medicines is extremely small. The fact that homeopathic medicine represents the leading medical alternative in Europe and in significant portions of Asia (especially India and Pakistan) provides additional support for this often misunderstood medical science and art. In fact, over 100 million people in India depend solely on this form of medical care.(21) Further, according to an A.C. Neilsen survey, 62 percent of current homeopathy users in India have never tried conventional medicines and 82 percent of homeopathy users would not switch to conventional treatments.(22)
The So-Called Best Evidence that Homeopathy Does Not Work
Sadly and strangely, the skeptics of homeopathy put much of their belief that homeopathy does not work on a review and comparison of homeopathic and conventional medical research that was published in the Lancet in 2005.(23) The Lancet even published an editorial in this same issue entitled "The End of Homeopathy."
However, this "evidence" is a very controversial and some say extremely flawed review of homeopathic research.(24)(25) This review sought to compare 110 placebo-controlled homeopathic studies and with a "matched" group of 110 studies testing conventional medications. The researchers appropriately sought to evaluate only those studies that their criteria deemed of sufficiently "high quality."
Although the idea of comparing studies is a good idea, the way that this group of researchers evaluated only a small subset of all studies showed an initial and ongoing bias, as you shall soon see...
First, it is important to know that the leader of this review of homeopathic research is A. Shang's boss (and co-author of this article) M. Eggers, a vocal noted skeptic of homeopathy. Second, evidence of strong bias against homeopathy by these researchers was brought to light by the Lancet's senior editor, Zoe Mullan, who acknowledged that, "Professor Eggers stated at the onset that he expected to find that homeopathy had no effect other than that of placebo."(26)
Shang and his team deemed that "high quality trials" must fit certain criteria. It must be acknowledged that two other meta-analyses that have previously been published in the Lancet (1997) and the British Medical Journal (1991) have deemed several trials that had strongly positive effects from homeopathic treatment as "high quality" than was not deemed as such by Shang (and he has never commented about this discrepancy).
Despite the problems in comparing conventional medical research and homeopathic research, let's assume that the two groups of studies ARE comparable. It is therefore more than a tad ironic that they found 21 of the homeopathic studies fit this definition of "high quality" clinical researcher but only 9 of the conventional studies did so. One would have thought that the researchers would then compare these "high quality" trials. However, this result would have shown that there IS a difference between homeopathic treatment and a placebo in a variety of ailments, and authors (who are known skeptics of homeopathy) could not allow that conclusion.
Instead, Shang's group chose to only evaluate a much smaller subset of these high quality trials. They limited the review to the largest trials in both groups to 8 homeopathic trials (with at least 98 subjects) and six conventional trials (with at least 146 subjects). Strangely enough, when evaluating only this last group of larger studies, they were not comparable in ANY way. The diseases that they treated were all different. And conveniently enough, the researchers asserted that one of the large trials testing homeopathic medicines in the treatment of patients with polyarthritis (arthritis in multiple joints) did not have a comparable trial (they actually asserted with complete seriousness that there has never been a study of patients with this common malady, and rather than admit that this large trial of 175 patients which showed significant efficacy of treatment, they simply threw out the trial from their evaluation). When one realizes that NONE of the studies in the final evaluation matched each other in any way, the researchers' decision to throw out this study on the homeopathic treatment of people with polyarthritis is additional evidence of the researcher's strong biases and their efforts to prove homeopathy as a placebo "by hook or by crook."
The researchers put a higher value of those studies with larger numbers of patients because they asserted that smaller trials are "biased," even though they were randomized double-blind and placebo studies (and many of which were published in the Lancet, the BMJ, and other highly respected conventional medical journals). One group of four studies on patients with respiratory allergies which included 253 subjects and was published in the BMJ(27) was not a part of the final analysis without explanation. An earlier study published in the Lancet with 144 subjects suffering from hay fever was also missing from the final analysis.(28) The fact that these studies showed a significant benefit from homeopathic treatment was ignored entirely.
Using large number of subjects is "do-able" in homeopathy, though it is simply less frequent, due to the high costs of such studies and due to the fact that the profit margin for the sale of homeopathic medicines does not even approach that of conventional drugs. Also, it is a lot easier using conventional medicine than homeopathic medicine in studies because the very nature of homeopathy is the necessity to evaluate a person's overall syndrome, not just any localized disease. This type of sophistication in individualized treatment is a part of good acupuncture treatment as well.
It is therefore not surprising that six of the eight large homeopathic trials gave the same homeopathic medicine to every subject, no matter what symptoms of the disease the subjects in the experiments experienced. Astonishingly enough, the Shang review included a "weight-loss" study in their final review. The "study" used Thyroidinum 30C (a small dose of thyroid gland), even though this remedy is not reported in the homeopathic literature as an appropriate medicine for this condition.
Even though a study can be "well designed" and "well conducted," it will become a "junk science" study if the drug used is totally inappropriate for the sick person. As it turns out, six of the eight homeopathic studies in the final analysis by Shang used homeopathic medicines that were unlikely to be prescribed by a practicing homeopath (they prescribe their medicines based on the overall syndrome of physical and psychological symptoms the patient has, not just based on the diagnosed name of the disease, except in exceptional situations). In research and statistics, good studies need to have "internal validity" (how the study was designed and conducted) and "external validity" (how the treatment in the study can be generalized to clinical practice). The Shang group did not even seek to evaluate whether any of the studies had "external validity" or not. Sad, but true.
Perhaps the most interesting fact about this study was totally ignored by its authors. Shang and his team purposefully did not evaluate safety issues of treatment. Therefore, it is not surprising that at least three of the conventional medical treatments that were found to be "effective" initially were later found to be so dangerous that the drugs were withdrawn from medical use.
Finally, imagine if researchers evaluated ALL studies for which antibiotics were used. Although antibiotics are primarily effective in the treatment of bacterial infections, they have been tested to treat a wide variety of infections, not just bacterial, but as we all know, antibiotics are not effective for anything other than bacterial infection (and even then, the frequency of use of antibiotics will reduce their efficacy because the bacteria adapt to it). Just because antibiotics are not effective for most conditions does not mean that specific antibiotics are ineffective for specific conditions. Good science requires specificity, not over-generalized statements, as Shang and his ilk have made.
Although the above seems to be a simple and logical statement, skeptics of homeopathy prove their paucity of rational thought by lumping together ALL types of homeopathic research, then throwing out or ignoring the vast majority of studies (including MOST of the studies that the researchers defined as "high quality"), and using studies that are not good examples of how homeopathy is practiced.
For instance, the World Health Organization has deemed that childhood diarrhea represents one of the most serious public health problems in the world today because millions of children die each year as a result of dehydration from diarrhea. With this concern in mind, three randomized double-blind trials were conducted testing individually chosen homeopathic medicines for children with diarrhea. One of these studies was published in Pediatrics,(29) and another study was published in another highly respected pediatric medical journal.(30) All three of these trials showed a significant benefit from homeopathic treatment when compared with placebo.
Similarly, four double-blind placebo controlled trials has shown benefit from the homeopathic medicine, Oscillococcinum, in the treatment of influenza.(31) Research has consistently found it to be effective in the treatment of influenza, though it does not seem to be effective in its prevention.
As for homeopathy and respiratory allergies, reference above was already made to four studies that showed effectiveness of homeopathic treatment (2 of which were published in the BMJ and one of which was published in the Lancet). Further, a review of seven double-blind and placebo controlled studies showed that homeopathic doses of Galphimia glauca were effective in treating people with hay fever.(32)
The two new re-analyses of the Shang review of homeopathic research prove the old cliche, garbage in, garbage out. Junk data indeed creates junk science which creates junk and meaningless results. And ironically, THIS study is considered the 'best" evidence that homeopathy does not work. If this is the best that they have, skepticism of homeopathy is not only dead, it is stupid dead.
While I would like to think that this article would finally put the last nail in the coffin of skeptics of homeopathy, I know that Big Pharma will not allow that to happen. Further, these skeptics are often like religious fundamentalists who will believe what they want to believe no matter what. And then, there's the impact from cognitive dissonance: many people who have invested their time and energy into conventional medicine simply cannot imagine admitting that homeopathy may have any benefit. It may be time to put that rotary telephone in the attic along with the typewriter and your former skepticism of homeopathic medicine.
A Simple Challenge to Skeptics
To adequately and accurately evaluate homeopathy, one has to evaluate the whole body of evidence that has enabled homeopathy to persist for 200+ years. While evaluating double-blind clinical trials is important, so is evaluating the wide body of basic sciences, as well as the clinical outcome trials, the epidemiological studies, the cost-effectiveness literature, and the serial case review trials. It is strange that these defenders of science would remain so ignorant of the whole body of evidence that homeopathic medicine stands. Some leading skeptics of homeopathy even pride themselves on the value of having a closed mind to homeopathy.(33)
Skeptics of homeopathy assume that homeopaths, more than any other type of health practitioner, have incredible magic powers to elicit a placebo effect. We all acknowledge a certain power of the placebo in treating the "worried well," but do skeptics of homeopathy really believe that a placebo effect is consistently effective to treat all of the serious illnesses that are commonly treated by homeopaths...and for which good double-blind studies show efficacy? Studies at the University of Vienna showed "substantial significance" in treating patients with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease...the number four reason that people in the USA die!)(34) and severe sepsis (a condition which kills 50 percent of patients in hospitals who are inflicted with it, and yet, homeopathic treatment has been found to cut this death rate in HALF!).(35)
The vast majority of homeopaths throughout the world are medical doctors or some other licensed or certified health professional who practice family medicine and who see patients with varied acute and chronic ailments. Therefore, I personally challenge ANY skeptic of homeopathy to try to maintain a family practice and only dispense "sugar pills," rather than real homeopathic medicines. My challenge is simple: while seeing a wide variety of children and adults with various acute and chronic problems, take them off all of their conventional drugs (with the exception of insulin and a small selection of drugs of "medical necessity"), and prescribe only sugar pills...for just one week.
When you consider that homeopaths do this for 52 weeks of the year, skeptics of homeopathy should not have any problem IF they think that homeopaths are only prescribing placebos. Let's see how many patients complain, call you late at night expressing concern about the ineffectiveness of your "medicine," and simply do not return for future health care. Any skeptic of homeopathy will be "cured" by this experience in humility. (For the record, I have offered hundreds of skeptics with this challenge, and not a single one has agreed to "prove" that placebo treatment can work in family medicine).
To clarify, I honor good skepticism, for a healthy skepticism seeks to truly explore a subject with knowledge and without arrogance. Further, good skepticism seeks to understand the wide body of evidence that it is necessary to evaluate to determine veracity of phenomena. It is the bad or ugly skepticism that breeds an unscientific attitude and that is simply a form of denialism, or in some cases, hyper-denialism.
Sadly, many of today skeptics are fundamentalists who epitomize a "closed mind." Deepak Chopra said it so well when he asserted, "professional skeptics who are self-appointed vigilantes dedicated to the suppression of curiosity" (huffingtonpost, Dec 27, 2009). When such people do not want to learn from the past, do not even read the research (or only read those studies that confirm their own point of view), and maintain a high degree of arrogance, such "skepticism" isn't skepticism at all: it is bad scientific thinking, it is an unhealthy attitude towards science, and it is a model for how not to learn.
One of the leaders of the skeptics is famed magician James Randi, who like many skeptics is seemingly skeptical of everything (except conventional medicine). He, however, has begun to lose respect from his colleagues and scientists by his skepticism of global warming.(36)
When the denialists assert and insist that homeopathy "cannot" work, I remind them that "science" and "medicine" are not just nouns but verbs...science and medicine are ever-changing. ..and what may be today's medicine is tomorrow's quackery, and what may today's quackery may be tomorrow's medicine. This is not a prediction; this is history. I encourage everyone and anyone who is seriously interested in the science and art of real healing to explore what homeopathic medicine has to offer. As Mark Twain once asserted in 1890, "you may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists [conventional physicians] to destroy it."
REFERENCES:
(1) Murray CJL, Frenk J, Ranking 37th -- Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System. New England Journal of Medicine. 362;2 January 14, 2010. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp0910064.pdf?ssource=hcrc
(2) Ullman, Dana. Homeopathic Medicine: Europe's #1 Medical Alternative. www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman ; also: Fisher, Peter, and Ward, Adam, "Complementary Medicine in Europe," British Medical Journal, July 9, 1994,309:107-110.
(3) Coulter HL, Divided Legacy: The Schism in Medical Thought. Volumes 2 & 3. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 1975, 1973. (Note: Dr. Harris Coulter, a world renowned medical historian who specialized in the history of homeopathic medicine, passed away in October, 2009.)
(4) Rothstein, W. Physicians in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.
(5) Ullman Dana. The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2007. http://www.HomeopathicRevolution.com
(6) Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K, A Critical Overview of Homeopathy, Annals in Internal Medicine, March 4, 2003:138:393-399.
(7) Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. (In 1999, Linde acknowledged that some new research reduced the significance of this review, but he never said or implied that the significance was lost. In fact, in 2005, he sharply criticized the Shang review of homeopathic research.)
(8) Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
(9) Ullman Dana. Homeopathic Family Medicine: Evidence Based Nanopharmacology. An ebook. www.homeopathic.com/ebook
(10) M. Weiser, W. Strosser, P. Klein, "Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Trial," Archives of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998, 124:879-885.
(11) http://avilian.co.uk/ --This site provides references and links to many high quality basic science studies.
(12) Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28.
(13) Rey, L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74.
(14) 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.
(15) International Journal of High Dilution Research. http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr
(16) HomBRex - a database on Basic Research experiments on Homeopathy. http://www.carstens-stiftung.org/ -- a database of over 1,400 basic science studies, accessed 12-31-09.
(17) Calabrese, Edward. Hormesis: a revolution in toxicology, risk assessment and medicine. EMBO 5,2004: S37-S40. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400222.
(18) Calabrese EJ, Linda A Baldwin LA. Applications of hormesis in toxicology, risk assessment and chemotherapeutics. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, Volume 23, Issue 7, 331-337, 1 July 2002. doi:10.1016/S0165-6147(02)02034-5.
(19) 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. Anick DJ, Ives JA. The silica hypothesis for homeopathy: physical chemistry. Homeopathy. 2007 Jul;96(3):189-95.
(20) Ullman Dana. The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2007. www.HomeopathicRevolution.com
(21) Prasad R. Homoeopathy booming in India. Lancet, 370:November 17, 2007,1679-80.
(22) A C Neilsen survey backs homeopathy benefits. Business Standard. September 4, 2007. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/a-c-nielsen-survey-backs-homeopathy-benefits/295891/
(23) Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet. 366,9487, 27 August 2005:726-732.
(24) Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.
(25) Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: The importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy. October 2008, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008
(26) EHM News Bureau. Condemnation for The Lancet's Stance on Homeopathy. Express Pharma Pulse, October 6, 2005.
(27) MA Taylor, D Reilly, RH Llewellyn-Jones, et al., Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series, BMJ (August 19, 2000)321:471-476.
(28) Reilly D, Taylor M, McSharry C, et al., Is Homoeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homoeopathic Potency, with Pollen in Hayfever as Model. Lancet, 1985:881-6.
(29) Jennifer Jacobs, L. Jimenez, Margarita, Stephen Gloyd, "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua," Pediatrics, May 1994, 93,5:719-25.
(30) Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Meta-Analysis from Three Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trials. Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal. . 2003;22:229-234.
(31) Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub3.
(32) M. Wiesenauer, R. Ludtke, "A Meta-analysis of the Homeopathic Treatment of Pollinosis with Galphimia glauca," Forsch Komplementarmed., 3(1996):230-234.
(33) Baum M, Ernst E. Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy? Am J Med 2009;122:973-974.
(34) Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients. Chest 2005;127:936-941. (This journal is consider THE most respected journal in respiratory medicine.)
(35) Frass M, Linkesch M, Banyai S, et al. Adjunctive homeopathic treatment in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an intensive care unit. Homeopathy 2005;94;75-80.
(36) http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
(37) Twain, M. A Majestic Literary Fossil, Harper's Magazine, February 1890, 80(477):439-444.
Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com. He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.
Follow Dana Ullman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDana
Dana Ullman: How Scientific Is Modern Medicine Really?
Dana Ullman: Do Antibiotics Make People Fat?
Arthur Rosenfeld: Heal Yourself With Your Own Voice
I would propose that we attempt an experiment of our own. Let us fuel drain our car of fuel such that it exhibits symptoms of being out of fuel. Then we'll fill the car with water and shake it vigorously - "succession," to use the term you created to make it sound like you're doing something more complex than shaking something about. Using your principle of "like cures like," this should address our fuel problem, since a tank full of water is like a tank empty of gas, in that a car still won't run on it (though the "metallica hypothesis" is particularly intriguing, especially in light of the fact that approximately 6 parts per million of "petrol fragments" or "gassy bits" are known to fall off the walls of fuel tanks during the shaking process. In addition, the shaking process generates nanobubbles and transient localized regions of high pressure topping 10,000 atmospheres that have been hypothesized to alter the water in a significant and persistent way.)
There. See how easy that was to sound like an expert on something I just made up?
Second, let me point out that fuel tanks are not complex systems involving hundreds of biochemicals, mediators and immune system agents nor are they striving for homeostasis. Your example fails to make your point and just sounds snide.
Your point about linked references is a good one.
Here is an example that involves the human body instead of an automobile. Asphyxiation in a low oxygen atmosphere has a very predictable effect on the human body. One substance that creates this same effect on the human body is carbon monoxide. Using the principle of "like cures like" one should be able to use a homeopathic dilution of carbon monoxide in water to negate the effects of a low oxygen atmosphere.
I needed such a "miracle" to believe. During a pregnancy years ago, I got a bladder infection that was so severe it went straight to my kidneys and I ended up in the ER. I had to start antibiotics immediately, and the doctors were very concerned because I was pregnant. Ten days of antibiotics healed it. However, a new infection came back just days after finishing the antibiotics. Back to antibiotics again; very painful, and scary.
Due to the seriousness of the infection, I researched alternatives because I learned these infections are recurrent. I read about homeopathy and appreciated the safety record because I would be breastfeeding soon, so that's where I focused, spending many hours researching the ideal remedy for my particular symptoms.
Another 2 weeks, another serious kidney infection. I took the remedy and with 2 doses over 3 hours all pain subsided. Talk about a miracle! A few weeks later, another infection. I took the same remedy agan, and the infection disappeared the same day. Same thing about 3 months later, and again a few months later - still recurring but less & less less frequently...
That said, I'm afraid you've failed to convince me.
You said: "To adequately and accurately evaluate homeopathy, one has to evaluate the whole body of evidence that has enabled homeopathy to persist for 200+ years.(33) " Would you say that in order to properly evaluate astrology, I must evaluate the whole body of evidence that has enabled it to persist for 800+ years? Of course not - the assertion that stars magically affect us may or may not be true, though it seems absurd, but simple deduction tells us that with trillions of stars in the universe, the likelihood that any person can accurately measure the effects of trillions of independant sources of this magical energy - emanating in many cases from sources too faint for the unaided eye to see, and all of this happening millions of light years away (such that those stars aren't even where they appear to be any more) - is vanishingly small.
Nonetheless, astrologers pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible by inventing complicated sounding terms and processes to explain what they do.
Anti-alternative medicine strategists like to talk about "evidence" based medicine - except that this is, in fact, a chimera invented to denigrate CAM. Take the average 75 year old patient taking medications. Many of these people are taking 3, 4, 5 or more pharmaceutical drugs, simultaneously, in the course of a single day. There are NO studies of the combined short and long term effects of such medications.
The scientific Homeopathy evidence remains under research, for example the anomalous production of biological effects exerted by molecules that are no longer there (Ennis -Inflammation Research, vol 53, p181 and NUMEROUS confirmations in other labs NOT including the BBC documentary farce).
And, therefore, the clinical evidence (which is overwhelming in favour of Homeopathy) which is included in the purview of "totality of evidence" to which the original respondent referred, causes the mention of astrology, creationism, or gypsy fortune telling to immediately exempt YOU from any logico-scientific discussion and deprecates your view to the low level of the misrepresentationists.
Mentioning astrologers and implying deceptions does not help your position, except to reveal the lack of thought inherent in it.
The value of clinical evidence depends on the process used to obtain that evidence. People stating "it worked for me" (or variations of that concept) are of little meaning. If homeopathy is to be effective then it must be CONSISTENTLY show to be effective in double blind placebo controlled trials. This is true for EACH HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY (evidence for one remedy is not evidence for all).
Your mention of pharmaceutical drugs which is a red herring. Prescription drugs are irrelevant to whether homeopathy is valid. However, EACH AND EVERY prescription drug must be shown to be effective before it is approved for a purpose.
Mention of astrology does not "exempt" one from discussion, It is an excellent point. There are millions of people who believe that there is scientific basis for astrology. There are thousands of practitioners, many of whom posit theories for how it supposedly works. Many would claim that there are mounds of "clinical evidence" that is "overwhelmingly in favor of astrology". Other sciences can stand up to comparisons with astrology. If homeopathy is valid then it should be able to do the same.
there are wonderful studies, many performed by governmental medical groups such as in Switzerland and Belgium that show homeopathy to be much more effective than the typical allopathic treatment for a given disorder.
In fact, I just recently read a review of over 2000 allopathic drug studies that showed 46% of them to not even be based on any outcomes what so ever, and only 13% to pass an evidence based outcome measure.
you need to read!
Toni Bark MD, LEEDap
7) There is extreme sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation across the entire biological spectrum.
a) Dose/response studies need to focus on sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. From here, extrapolations would be expected to be generated to possible homeopathic mechanisms.
8) Weakly coupled pendula demonstrate a plausible model for similarity and potency. FA Popp Some Biophysical Elements of Homeopathy in Ultra High Dilution Physiology and Physics, Endler, Schulte ed. pg 182. Basically, the similarity principle is demonstrated by frequency resonance between the 2 pendula and the potency principle is demonstrated by a high energy transfer at low starting amplitudes. In the same article Popp goes on to describe a coherence model and explanation for decay times in excess of 10 to the 7th seconds. Not very long, but longer than immediate dissipation as suggested by blanket statements of violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I agree that homeopathy has to come up with testable models to account for the 2nd Law. Following from here, homeopathy has to come up with plausible models for information storage in water. And yes, I think it will come from there.
To specify a measurement threshold, results will not likely be determined until "non-thermal phonons of intensities of at least 10 to the minus 12th can be registered by measuring equipment." Popp op.cit. p. 184.
Is there any published (i.e. peer-reviewed) data to support #8 or is it only within a book?
Again I have to go back to the same question, you are spending a lot of time postulating mechanisms by which homeopathy could work, but not spending much time showing the existence of homeopathic phenomena.
3) Potentization – Stepwise dilution of a substance e.g. in a water or water/alcohol mixture and input of exogenous energy by agitation, e.g. succussion or vortexing between the dilution steps. Non-water soluble substances are triturated first. In Hahnemann’s terms, this process released the essence (Wesen or Dynamis) of the material.
4) Proving – application of a molecular (crude) substance or homeopathic dilution to healthy people with the aim of provoking symptoms – empirical homeopathic intoxication studies.
5) The more sensitive a patient is, the lower the potency or quantity of medicine is required.
6) All disease is dynamic in origin. We would call this energetic today. Treatment that does not take this into account, can only treat symptoms, never causes. Each true disease has its own essence (Wesen, Dynamis).
This should do for a start.
I also don't understand how you can argue that treatment only treats symptoms, not causes. You have strep throat. Strep throat is caused by a bacteria, streptococcus pyogenes. You treat the patient with anti-biotics to destroy the bacteria thereby eliminating the cause of disease.
Wesen - the closest modern concept would be epigenetics - the 'mechanism' that controls gene replication. I've got to do more work here to flesh this idea out, but this is a starting place.
Strep - perfect example. From the homeopathic perspective, you have no cure. You are treating the symptom of whatever is actually causing the problem. Cure from the homeopathic perspective eliminates the tendency to get recurrent strep infections - the most common problem that I'm aware of with people who get them. Once you get them, if you only treat with antibiotics, you will keep getting them. And if you're energetically weak, you will require greater and greater strength antibiotics. See MRSA.
Bombs away:
1) The Law of Similarity – The application of either a molecular (crude) substance, or a homeopathic dilution of that substance, or an independent pathological process, on healthy persons can induce clearly defined symptoms. The homeopathic dilution that is able to induce the defined symptoms in healthy people is used in medical therapy of the analogous symptom caused by pathological processes. Examples:
a.Cure after exposure to or protection from a toxin or allergen by a homeopathic preparation of that toxin or allergen
b.A bee sting or exposure to ultraviolet rays can induce an inflammatory reaction. Homeopathic dilutions of bee venom are capable of inhibiting cutaneous erythema induced by bee sting or ultraviolet rays.
2) Potency rule – Through homeopathic potentization, information is transferred to the solvent. The more often the process takes place, the sharper the transfer becomes.
a.In digital information transfer, Level of Detail is analogous. A quick transfer can yield sufficient detail to communicate the desired subject. Repeated transfers can fill in the details to a level the receiver finds sufficient.
OK, so is there evidence that supports the existence of this phenomena? That would be key. WIthout that, all the mechanistic arguments in the world will never get you anywhere.
Do you consider low dilution homeopathic treatments (i.e. 1x) to be truly homeopathic?
If you mean practical experience, this particular remedy in this application has been used by tens of thousands of homeopaths over the years. It's a very common remedy.
To address future queries - there are no studies of homeopathy that I am aware of that would satisfy high quality standards.
1x - please read my statements carefully. This question is addressed in 1. The principle is resonance. If there is a resonance between the medicine and the problem, it can be addressed by any means - including crude - non-potentized - substances.
Several people posting here have noted that their relatives are patients at Banerji and are doing very well with their treatment.
As an update, in February, 2010, the International Journal of Oncology published a ground-breaking study completed at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Texas U. "This study showed that four homeopathic remedies were demonstrated to induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in breast cancer cell lines in the lab. This study not only identified the effect of the homeopathics but the potential mechanism of action in one of the most thorough and interesting studies ever done on Homeopathics. The study is significant and covers almost 9 pages of analysis, graphs, and the mechanism of the homeopathics including the observed mechanism of action which was the upregulation and downregulation by the homeopathics of specific functions."
www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/36/2/395
See for yourself!
The problem is, it doesn't do anything, so there really isn't any need to figure out how it works. Speculation can be an interesting thought experiment, but in the end, speculation about how it could work without a consistently demonstrated effect is a mechanism in search of a result.
There are things that can happen that science doesn't understand, many things in actuality. But just because there are gaps one cannot just fill in those gaps with unsupported theories. Science is about observing phenomena, verifying the validity of that phenomena, and then determining why that phenomena occurs. But something really has to happen first. And that really is the key part lacking from homeopathy; good, solid generation of evidence supporting the very basic hypothesis that "a highly diluted extract will exert a consistent, significant, and reproducible biological or chemical effect.
Agreed. But as you (plural) have made an as yet unsubstantiated assertion that homeopathy violates laws of science, you have to state exactly which ones and how.
If you (plural) cannot, you have to concede this point and move your argument elsewhere.
This ain't no thought experiment. This is good argumentation. It requires patience and careful thought. Otherwise it's just a bunch of people yelling at each other. Stupid waste of time.
As we are minimally talking about paradigm change, I don't see how anything has been exhausted except some people's patience.
Cable1977, I'm genuinely disappointed that you have resorted to blind assertions here. We could agree to disagree, or you could say that you're too frustrated to continue, but the statements above are just opinion.
Besides I'm not done whittling away at your (plural) arguments...:-)
I did below. I mentioned several points below of laws and other principles that I think would be in violation including the law of mass action, 2nd law of thermodynamics, and that there is no evolutionary advantage to homeopathic efficacy or even a homeopathic effect and provided arguments as to why I believe homeopathy would violate those principles.
I don't think saying that homeopathy doesn't do anything is at all a blind assertion or just opinion. It is a statement derived from a consideration of all the available evidence. You want to speculate on mechanism without even proving effect. Many of your arguments have been "Is homeopathy possible?" I have agreed that it is possible, and that almost anything is possible, but that doesn't mean that it is true or there is a demonstrable effect. I note that in all the discussion of mechanism I have not seen any links to definitive studies proving homeopathic efficacy. Without proof of efficacy, any speculative mechanism is simply that...speculation without any evidence supporting it. As I said, one must demonstrate the existence of the phenomena prior to exploring the mechanism of the phenomena. People have speculated on mechanisms for astrology, but that doesn't make astrology true.
As I've said before, it's been a life-saver for me in my treatment of serious, chronic illnesses like neuropathy. It's been so great in treating acute illnesses like bronchitis that instead of being in bed for a week or more I've been able to kick the illness and the symptoms in a few days. ("anecdotal" evidence, backed by the doc's observations and test results)
My only regret is that I didn't find homeopathy until fairly late in life. I know, without a trace of doubt, that had I used it since childhood, I would have avoided a great deal of pain and discomfort. (more "anecdotal" evidence)
Despite the distortions and machinations of some of the posters here, there certainly is a good deal of evidence supporting homeopathy in vitro, in vivo, plant and animal studies as well studies in people.
Lancet
British Medical Journal
Rheumatology
Phlebotomy
Pediatrics
Pediatrie
Allergologie
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Pediatric Infective Disease Journal
American Revue of Respiratory Diseases
Archives of Medical Emergency
Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
Canadian Medical Association Journal
National Scientific Journal
Orthopadische Praxis
Therapiewoche
Kinderarzt
Forschungsmedizin
Revue of Francaise De Gynecologie Et Obstretricie
Cancer
Thrombosis Research
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Archives of Otolaringology/Head and Neck Surgery
Arzneimittel Forschung/Drug Research
If all it takes to convince you is acceptance for publication rather than evaluation of the actual data or studies, then I assume your previous complaints about pharmaceutical products are recinded, since many pharmaceutical products are also published within those journals.
I know you were a big proponent of nootrope's posting of the chicken study, but you didn't respond to the various criticisms of the conclusions of the article (other than insisting that the remedy was homeopathic despite any evidence) so one must assume you agree they are valid criticisms.
"Did you know that conventional medicine is doing experiments in curing cancer by surgically implanting cancer cells in the patient?"
I still cannot find this - if anyone has a link or some more information, I would appreciate seeing it.
Yesterday, the Science and Technology Select Committee of the NHS in the UK delivered its verdict on homeopathy. Indeed, the Committee has gone so far as to call for the complete withdrawal of NHS funding and official licensing for homeopathy.
To read the report go here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf
To quote from the report:
"By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products."
"We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science. (Paragraph 54)
We consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible. (Paragraph 61)"
"There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities."
What is it about succussion that violates any law of science? The definition - this definition is just something to work with - would be that succussing a substance increases its energy. To eliminate as many variables as possible, I would like to focus this question on the potencies below Avogadro's number.
If the definition needs to be tightened or adjusted, would should probably do that first.
What thinketh y'all?
What energy are you referring to? Kinetic, thermal, electromagnetic, or some other unknown, unmeasurable energy? Are you referring to the energy of the water or the energy of the substance being diluted in the water? Shaking any bottle of water would increase both its thermal and kinetic energy, but once the shaking is completed, thermodynamics said that the energy will flow away from the bottle and out into the environment. Why would the energy remain in the liquid when entropic forces would push the energy of the succussed water into the surrounding environment? Also, is it the succussion process or the material itself that causes the energy. If it is simply the succussion then why dilute anything at all?
Then lets say the water is imbued with some sort of energy. What is the likelyhood that the energy would survive transit into the body. Furthermore, our cells do not have receptors for "energy" and any level of energy significant enough to effect us on a cellular level should be measurable in some way, even if we are unsure what that energy is.
But the important point to remember is that homeopathy doesn't just say that there is an increase in energy. The priciple of like treats like combined with the law of infinitessimals predict that the chemical will become progressively weaker, with its effect gradually diminishing to nothing, after which the *opposite* effect is seen and progressively strengthened.
Kinetic or thermal transfer - thermodynamics, if I understand correctly, does not say that there is a 100% transfer back to the environment, nor over what period of time the transfer_has_to take place. There is plenty of room, in principle, for a small amount of energy to remain. Please note that I am not proposing this as an explanation for how potentization works. I am trying to establish where the violation of the laws of Nature is, or is not.
I don't want to get into the other arguments yet. If we want to avoid big messy discussions that won't satisfy anyone, I suggest we proceed point by point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2
"in medicine there is a strong culture of critical self-appraisal. Doctors are taught to spot bad research (as I am teaching you now) and bad drugs. The British Medical Journal recently published a list of the top three most highly accessed and referenced studies from the past year, and they were on, in order: the dangers of the anti-inflammatory Vioxx; the problems with the antidepressant paroxetine; and the dangers of SSRI antidepressants in general. This is as it should be.
With alternative therapists, when you point out a problem with the evidence, people don't engage with you about it, or read and reference your work. They get into a huff. They refuse to answer calls or email queries. They wave their hands and mutter sciencey words such as "quantum" and "nano". They accuse you of being a paid plant from some big pharma conspiracy. They threaten to sue you. They shout, "What about thalidomide, science boy?", they cry, they call you names, they hold lectures at their trade fairs about how you are a dangerous doctor, they contact and harass your employer, they try to dig up dirt from your personal life, or they actually threaten you with violence."
If I am one of the people you are referring to, I_think_I've made it clear I don't fall within the description. So I'm not sure why the question is being asked. Shrieking or avoiding ain't my style. Anger, properly expressed, shouldn't be an issue.
BTW, one of the regular 'explanations' for why homeopathy gets effects - placebo - was the main underpinning of that article and most others critiques. Placebo effect as the explanation for homeopathy is the main reason why I asked for a placebo mechanism in animal husbandry. As no reasonable mechanism was offered or established - it appears we have agreement that there is no placebo effect in animal husbandry.
I would disagree with that. A placebo group is simply an untreated or control treatment group. The "placebo effect" is a combination of multiple factors, some known and others unknown that is more complicated than the colloquial meaning that people tend to use it for. For example, variations in disease severity, disease timecourse, and genetic variability of the subjects all contribute to potential efficacy in an untreated group. There is also some evidence to suggest that there also is a certain amount of "belief" effect involved (i.e. people get better because they think they are receiving treatment), but that is not the whole story. Many disease are cyclical and many conditions will heal on their own without any intervention whatsoever.
All these factors contribute to a placebo effect. And it is quite possible, even in animals, for variations in disease course to contribute to a placebo group appearing to show improvement compared to no treatment, depending on the size of the group studied. The placebo effect goes away the larger the group that is examined, which is why the effects seen in very small clinical trials of homeopathy disappear when larger populations are studied. The larger population statistically controls better for variation in that individual variation will have much less of an effect upon the average of the group.