I believe what prevents men from accepting the homeopathic principles is ignorance, but ignorance is criminal when human lives are at stake. No honest man faced with the facts of homeopathy can refuse to accept it. He has no choice. When I had to face it, I had to become a follower. There was no choice if I were to continue to be an honest man. ... Truth always demands adherence and offers no alternative.
--Sir John Weir, physician to King George VI and to four generations of British monarchs
"The King's Speech" depicts the compelling story of King George VI and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Lionel Logue was neither a physician nor a conventional speech therapist, but his treatment strategies were impressively successful.
The British Royal Family has been known for being exceedingly conservative and embodying traditional ideals of family and public service, but they are also known to have special appreciation and even advocacy for certain unconventional treatments that really worked, whether conventional medicine accepted them or not. Such were their experiences with Mr. Logue's speech therapy and the respected and widely practiced, but often misunderstood science and art of homeopathic medicine.
King George VI was neither the first nor the last of the British royals to use and benefit from homeopathy. Queen Adelaide (1792-1849), wife of King William IV, first made public her special interest in this "new medicine" in 1835. Other British aristocrats shared the queen's interests, including the Marquess of Anglesey who crossed the British Channel to go to Paris for treatment by the founder of homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843).
Queen Adelaide had been suffering from a serious malady that the court physicians couldn't cure. The queen called for the services of one of Hahnemann's oldest and most faithful colleagues, Dr. Johann Ernst Stapf (1788-1860), who cured her, creating the first of many supporters of homeopathy among British royalty.
Various kings and queens of Great Britain since Queen Adelaide have openly sought medical care from homeopathic physicians. Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was treated by Dr Frederick Quin, the personal physician/homeopath to Prince Leopold of the Belgians, who was the great uncle of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's much loved husband. A recent popular movie, "Young Victoria," chronicled their love affair.
Princess Mary, who later became Queen Mary (1865-1953), wife of King George V, headed the fundraising efforts to move and expand the London Homeopathic Hospital. King George V(1865-1936) was appreciative of homeopathy because it provided him with the practical benefit of treating his seasickness, a condition that he tended to experience because he was so fond of sailing.
King George V was known to have treated for this condition with Tabacum, a homeopathic dose of tobacco that was prescribed by his homeopathic doctor, Dr Sir John Weir (1879-1971).(1) Because smoking of tobacco is known to cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea, homeopathic doses of this medicine can help to relieve common symptoms experienced with seasickness.
During more recent times, a study published in a medical journal published by the American Medical Association found that Cocculus compositum (aka Vertigoheel, a mixture or formula of homeopathic medicines) was as effective as a conventional drug for dizziness...and was safer.(2) This study showed that homeopathic treatment showed a clinically relevant reduction in the mean frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo (dizziness) attacks.
Ironically, his son, who later became King George VI (1895-1952), had a completely different experience with tobacco. In contrast, he was chronically addicted to tobacco which led to his early death. Still, King George VI was appreciative enough of homeopathy that he named a prize racehorse Hypericum, after a notable homeopathic medicine for injury to nerves.
King George VI was an expert user of homeopathic medicine, and in 1948 he showed his profound appreciation for this system of medicine by granting royal title to the London Homeopathic Hospital. It was deemed the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital for many decades, until 2010, when its name was changed to become the Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.
The wife of King George VI was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002), who bore two daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon become known as 'Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mother,' to differentiate her from her daughter today's Queen Elizabeth II (1926- )
The Queen Mother was particularly appreciative of the homeopathic medicine, Arnica. She asserted, "I think Arnica is the most marvelous medicine and every doctor, including those not trained in homeopathy, should use Arnica." She realized that some people are skeptical of homeopathy, but she knew that such skepticism was common in people who didn't understand homeopathy or had simply not used it. She commonly used Arnica on her dogs whenever they injured themselves and encouraged her friends to use it.
Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne in 1952 and has been a long-time patron to the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, which underwent a $35 million refurbishing in 2005. When Queen Elizabeth II visited the Hospital in 2000, she looked straight at the picture of Sir John Weir, who was his homeopathic physician, and said "he did a lot of good for my father." To keep up with the times, in 2010, this hospital changed its name to Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.
The early growth of homeopathy in Britain in the mid-1800s became possible in large part through royal support and British aristocracy. The first British homeopath to British royalty, Dr. Frederick Quin, was a son of the Duchess of Devonshire (1765-1824), and thus himself an aristocrat. When Quin began his full-time homeopathic practice in London in 1832, he primarily treated members of his own noble class.
Today, the homeopath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Dr. Peter Fisher, who is also medical director of the Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.
Other European Monarchs' Love for Homeopathy
Ultimately, Sir John Weir was not only the homeopathic physician to King George VI, he also provided homeopathic treatment for six other monarchs, including King Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor, George VI, Elizabeth II, King Gustav V of Sweden (1858-1950), and King Haakon VII of Norway (1872-1957).(3)
It is worthy of note that British royalty were not the only nobles to embrace and advocate for homeopathy. In the mid-19th century, a remarkable 77 homeopathic physicians served as the personal physicians to monarchs and their families.(4) More detail about these physicians and their treatment of various monarchs are readily available.(5)
Napoleon III and Empress Eugenie of France were known advocates of homeopathy, and in fact, Napoleon III bestowed the Knight's Cross of the Legion of Honor upon his family's homeopathic physician, Dr. A.J. Davet, as well as upon Dr. Alexandre Charge for his remarkable results using homeopathic medicines in treating patients with cholera and upon Dr. J. Mabit for his work as the head of a hospital in Bordeaux where he consistently found that homeopathic treatment was effective.
Numerous kings, queens, and dukes from Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Prussia were known advocates for homeopathy as were Czar Nicholas and Czar Alexander II of Russia. Despite the immense power that these monarchs had at that time, the resistance to homeopathy from conventional physicians was so strong that these monarchs were unable to overcome the economic power of the doctors and pharmacists of that era. One reporter noted that even the czars of Russia were unable to breakdown "the Chinese wall by which the medical hierarchy surrounds its domain".(6)
Still, these monarchs could exercise their free will with any health care, and they consistently chose homeopathic treatment, making homeopathy "the royal medicine."
References:
(1) Morrell P. Tobacco: Two Royal anecdotes. BMJ. 29 January 2001, 322:203. http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7280/203.2.extract/reply
(2) Weiser, M, Strosser, W, Klein, P, "Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study," Archives of Otolaryngology¬¬¬¬--Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998,124:879-85. Although Tabacum is a leading medicine in homeopathy for vertigo/dizziness, this ingredient is not in this specific homeopathic formula medicine. The homeopathic medicine formula, Vertigoheel/Cocculus compositum, has been found to be effective for various ailments for which dizziness is a leading symptom.
(3) In 1939, King Haakon VII of Norway bestowed upon Sir John Weir the Knight Grand Cross of St. Olav, the highest honor granted by his country (Homoeopathy, 1939). Homoeopathy, Knight Grand Cross of St. Olav, March 1939, p. 96.
(4) Everest, Rev. T. R. A Popular View of Homeopathy. New York: William Radde, 1842.
(5) See the chapter "The Royal Medicine: Monarchs' Longtime Love for Homeopathy" in
Ullman D. The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2007.
(6) Historical and Statistical Report of the Rise, Progress, and Present Condition of Homeopathy in Russia, Transactions of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1876, vol. II.
Follow Dana Ullman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDana
Larry Malerba, D.O. : Homeopathy College: Now You Can Get a Doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine
Dana Ullman: Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously
Dana Ullman: Exploring the Research on Homeopathic Treatment for Fibromyalgia
Christine Escobar: Should the FDA Have Stricter Regulations Around Homeopathic Products?
British Homeopathy during two centuries by Peter Morrell
A History of Homeopathy in Britain
Homeopathy is worse than witchcraft - and the NHS must stop paying ...
The Royal Family's support for quackery is a national joke ...
Homeopath to the Queen 'risking patient health' by selling swine ...
1. All of the 100's of studies and 600 papers supporting homeopathy are flawed. Their evidence is their own, personal (anonymous and without credentials) interpretation of all this work or material re-posted from "skeptic" blogs, blogs written by "skeptics" for "skeptics".
2. All homeopaths are liars or simply "deluded" -- every last one of the 1/2 million in practice today.
3. All homeopathic patients are liars, foolish, gullible or can't tell whether they've improved or not -- every last one of the 1/2 billion users of homeopathy around the world.
4. All of the science and scientists who show us how homeopathy can work are incompetent or just plain wrong despite their world-wide recognition. (Again, this comes from anonymous posters with no credentials; people who have done no research themselves, much less published research, who have never used homeopathy and don't know anything about it.)
What's wrong with this picture?
No, the evidence are the meta-analyses, especially those of Shang et al (2005) and Linde et al (1999), which found that on the whole homeopathy is not efficacious. Those 100s of studies and 600 papers are found in sources that are not considered reputable because they have a documented publication bias and publish papers without adequate peer review.
"2. All homeopaths are liars or simply "deluded" -- every last one of the 1/2 million in practice today."
You forgot to mention incompetent. Yes, if you are faced with overwhelming scientific evidence that your treatments are not efficacious and you continue to prescribe them then you are delusion, incompetent, lying or some combination thereof. In any event, you should not be providing advice with respect to any serious disease.
"3. All homeopathic patients are liars, foolish, gullible or can't tell whether they've improved or not -- every last one of the 1/2 billion users of homeopathy around the world."
No, the patients are human and susceptible to making a number of logical fallacies. The most relevant are post hoc fallacies and regression to the mean.
"4. ..."
The Courtier's Reply has already been linked to. It is the information, not the identity, that's relevant.
Your post reads the same as a defender of astrology:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2163299_defend-astrology-skeptics.html
Or reflexology:
http://www.encognitive.com/node/3923
Or crystal healing:
http://kacha-stones.com/science_or_magic.htm
Do you advocate these "sciences" as well? If not, why?
I rather liked this rather inaccurate statement on the crystals page:
"The electronics industry does not use quartz because it is pretty, but because it structures energy precisely, in is this case, electricity. The natural tendency of quartz is for harmony."
Um, no, quartz is used because it is cheap and stable. There are other crystals that perform better, such as gallium phosphate, but none that match quartz on price:performance.
I also like the fact that they used a stopwatch that is clearly mechanical for their article about crystal healing. In that the whole page is about quartz crystals I am pretty sure they did not include it for its ruby bearings (and in any event the watch looked cheap and unlikely to contain ruby bearings).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DrNancyMalik/the-kings-homeopath_b_827499_79893940.html
1. PubMed Central (National Library of Medicine, USA)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pmc.Pmc_LimitsTab.LimitsOff=true&db=pmc&cmd=search&term=homeopathy (1906-till date)
2. Cochrane http://www.library.nhs.uk/cam/ViewResource.aspx?resID=295205 (2008) // hypericum for depression
3. HomBRex
http://www.carstens-stiftung.org/ // 1190 experiments on homeopathy in more than 900 original articles, including 1014 biological studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2291233/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
The conclusion: "The complex of homeopathy tested in this study was not superior to placebo in reducing 24 h morphine consumption after knee ligament reconstruction."
The other PubMed links seem to be patient reported surveys or historical reviews of homeopathy. Hardly conclusive research on the efficacy of homeopathy.
The Cochrane reference is to a study on St. Johns Wort-- which has nothing to do with homeopathy.
The HomBRex link displays as a blank page for me.
Zero for three on this post. I am beginning to think that homeopathy causes nothing more than red herrings. Following these links is proving to be a waste of time for me and the others you have tricked into following them.
1. "Use of Homeopathy in Pediatric Oncology in Germany" which states: "Homeopathy is the most frequently used CAM treatment in pediatric oncology in Germany. Compared to other CAM treatments, patient satisfaction with homeopathy appears to be very high."
Remember, please, that according to the records of GSK, conventional cancer treatments are effective in only 25% of patients. (The Independent, December 8, 2003)
Also, the conclusion to this study: "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies", which reads: "This study clearly proved that we need to shift our focus toward an integrative form of cancer treatment and that we need to put that effort in place as soon as possible."
www.bangkokpost.com/entertainment/music/211760/integrative-cancer-therapy
2. "Patient Satisfaction and Side Effects in Primary Care" which states: "Overall patient satisfaction was significantly higher in homeopathy than in conventional care. Homeopathy treatments were perceived as a low-risk therapy with 2 to 3 times fewer side effects than conventional care."
3. "Classical homeopathy in the treatment of cancer patients" which states: "In our prospective study we observed an improement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment."
American Journal of Homoeopathic Medicine
Homeopathic treatment of dental neuralgia by Arnica and Hypericum., Albertini H, Goldberg W, Sanguy B, Toulza CL., 1985, 3, pp. 126-129. // 60 people received either 4 pilules of Arnica 7C alternated with 4 pilules of Hypericum 15C every 4 hours or placebo administered in the same way. Pain levels were assessed over 3 days from the beginning of the trial. It was found that 12 of the 30 people who received the placebo had a positive response to this intervention, and 23 of the 30 people (76%) given the homeopathic medicines responded positively to these.
Sorry that the link on HomBRex did no worked. Here's the correct one
http://www.carstens-stiftung.de/
www.camnetwerk.nl/HomBRex%20database%20mei%202007.pdf
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/about-homeopathy/clinical-research/experimental-studies
http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/systematic_reviews/index.html
"Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16855981)
I emphasize that this was included in a list of studies purported to be "positive for homeopathy". I am beginning to think that homeopathy causes nothing more than red herrings. Following these links is proving to be a waste of time for me and the others you have tricked into following them.
"Four out of five major systematic reviews of RCT's in homeopathy have concluded that homeopathy has an effect greater than placebo." And, "A total of 142 randomized controlled trials (RCT's) in homeopathy have been published in good quality scientific journals.....systematic reviews of RCT's in specific medical areas have been positive for homeopathy, for example, in hayfever, fibromyalgia, sinusitis and vertigo."
In reading the link to the "faculty of homeopathy" site, I find this: "Of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 indicated positive results.....the evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications." And regarding 89 trials, "The main conclusion was that the results 'were NOT compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo." And, "Conclusions positive for homeopathy are in: allergies and upper respiratory tract infections, childhood diarrhea, INFLUENZA treatment, post operative ileus, rheumatic disease, seasonal allergic rhinitis and upper respiratory tract diseases including otitis media."
Your welcome to take it or leave it. Those of us who know and use homeopathy know that it's capable of treating and curing far more than the few conditions noted here.
Nature
Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE (1988)
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/benveniste01.pdf
This is Jacques Benveniste’s famous “memory of water” study. Three other labs replicate the results before the paper was published—an unprecedented requirement.
Next please.
Histamine 15-19C modulates anti-igE stimulated human basophil (CD63) activation (2004)
http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/histamine.pdf // The model is different to that of Benveniste; he used the same control but not the same activator.
It appears that it the 20+ years since that paper nobody has been able to duplicate the study although it was attempted many times. It seems to me that Beneviste's findings are about as true as the discovery of cold fusion by Fleischman and Pons.
Complementary Therapies in Medicine (Elseiver)
The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review (2007)
http://www.hiscia.ch/uploads/media/Witt2007.pdf // 73% of studies shows effects with serial agitated ultra-molecular dilutions
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions (1999)
http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/Elia.pdf //Successive dilutions and succussions may alter permanently the physical-chemical properties of the solvent water
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely-Diluted Aqueous Solutions (2004)
http://bit.ly/hZztMs // The procedure of dilutions and succussions is capable of modifying in a permanent way the physico-chemical features of water
Two of those citations were to support the following statement:
"All glassware were made of pure fused optical silica (Suprasil, Heraeus, and Hellma) in order to minimize container/content interaction."
No article in areas of chemistry, physics or materials science has cited that remaining article by Demangeat except one other article by Demangeat.
In short, the article you rely upon is not considered valuable to anybody with expertise in chemistry, physics or materials science, except the original author and Demangeat, both of whom are homeopathy advocates, has considered this article valuable except for the principle that pure fused silica is desirable as a container material that reduces the likelihood of contamination.
Of course, this is predicated on the acceptance of the rather unorthodox extension of quantum theory. I'll let Milgrom explain this bit himself:
"Indeed, the non-commuting algebraic formulation of orthodox quantum theory (which contains the extremely small number called Planck’s constant, h [formula]) would appear to preclude such quantum effects between macroscopic objects/ entities."
Yes it does. However, Milgrom goes on to cite himself and some of his colleagues in homeopathy in support of this proposition which, despite the number of references, appears to have no basis other than wishful thinking and wordplay. Planck's constant, and quantum theory in general has a solid experimental basis. I would expect something rather more impressive than a hunch before discarding current scientific wisdom.
Seriously, this reads like a physics term paper assembled by cutting and pasting disparate snips of various theories together. If we are to accept the entanglement of the practitioner, then what about all of the OTC homeopathic remedies? Is there special "entanglement room" at Boiron headquarters, staffed 24/7 in case anyone takes Oscillococcinum?
I like "sciencoidal" but shouldn't the term be "scientoidal"? "Science" comes from "scientia" so I think the term should be "scientoidal", no?
And also that they spend so much energy trying to negate it?
Couldn't that energy be used more positively?
You could always take another one of your pharmaceuticals and then get back to me.
Your comment does not dissuade me from pointing out, again and again, what a ripoff it is. I don't want anyone else wasting their money as I did. I certainly don't want anyone being fooled to the point of avoiding real medical care.
Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza (1989)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1379831/pdf/brjclinpharm00089-0054.pdf
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZDlZmxCu85c
Homeopathy = Extraordinary Medicine for Extraordinary Cures -- Safe and Inexpensive
By that reasoning, people who think about cliffs, and decide not to without trying it, are wrong!
It is possible to assess something properly without experiencing it directly.
Our sense of sight is a wonderful thing but let's tune into more than that.
Practice your other senses or you will lose them, unfortunately many of
us have already lost them.
Again I ask the question "In any case a little sunshine and a homeopathic remedy appear as least as effective as SSRI's for depression ; could they also be as effective in the treatment of osteopenia as the commonly given drugs.? " I noticed the responses previous post failed to answer that question. If anyone suggest the answer is no...
(apologies for the wikipedia link - I haven't had my coffee yet and I'm feeling lazy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopenia#Treatment_and_controversy
Homeopathy has been shown to have a strong placebo effect. This in no way proves or supports the "entanglement theory" of homeopathy. Use of placebos is a tricky ethical question, but I actually have no problem with homeopaths treating people for minor ailments that have been shown to respond strongly to a placebo. The problem is that homeopaths collectively feel no need to so limit themselves and are perfectly willing to "vaccinate" children, "treat" cancer or to prescribe homeopathic "anti-malarials"; all in lieu of standard medical treatment. I would put osteopenia, a degenerative disease where lack of medical attention could potentially result in irreversible harm, in the category of conditions that homeopaths should stay away from. A little self-restraint from homeopaths would go a long way towards reducing the opposition from the skeptic community.
A research team investigated whether or not contextual effects are higher in homeopathy than in ConMed by comparing the changes in the placebo groups of RCT's from classical h'pathy and matching conventional trials.
The authors performed a systematic literature analysis on placebo-controlled, double-blind RCT's on classical homeopathy. Each trial was matched to 3 placebo-controlled, DB RCT's from ConMed - mainly pharmaceuticals - involving the same diagnosis. Matching criteria included severity of complaints, choice of outcome parameter and treatment duration. Outcome was measured as the % of change of symptom scores from baseline to end of treatment in the placebo group. 35 RCT's on classical h'pathy were identified. 10 were excluded because no relevant data could be extracted or less than 3 matching conventional trials could be located.
The results showed that in 13 matched sets the placebo effect in the h'pathy trials was larger than the average placebo effect of the conventional trials. In 12 matched sets it was lower (P=0.39). Additionally no subgroup analysis yielded any significant difference.
The authors conclude that placebo effects in classical h'pthy did not appear to be larger than in conventional medicine.
Nuhn, et al., 2010
The headline reads:
"Homeopathic Consultations -- But Not Homeopathic Remedies -- Linked to Benefits for Patients, Study Finds"
The reasonable interpretation is that doctors should be given additional training with respect to patient consultation and that their remuneration should be arranged in a way that will encourage them to spend more time per patient. It does not in any way support treating patients with homeopathic remedies. In fact it says the opposite.
------------------------------------------------
I have a hard time understanding Bayes Theory. But this is pretty clear.
"An example will explain these points. Wayne Jonas was the Director of the US Office of Alternative Medicine from 1995 until its metamorphosis into the NCCAM in 1999. He is the co-author, along with Jennifer Jacobs, of Healing with Homeopathy: the Doctors’ Guide (©1996), which unambiguously asserts that ultra-dilute homeopathic preparations have specific effects. Yet Jonas is also the co-author (with Klaus Linde) of a 2005 letter to the Lancet that includes this statement, prefacing his argument that homeopathy, already subjected to hundreds of clinical trials, has not been disproved and deserves further trials:
We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence
from placebo-controlled trials is not robust.
[The author of THE study on homeopathic vaccines wrote that!!]
Bayes’s theorem shows that Jonas can’t have it both ways. Either he doesn’t really agree that homeopathy is highly implausible (which seems likely, unless he changed his mind between 1996 and 2005—oops, he didn’t); or, if he does, he needs to recognize that his statement quoted above is equivalent to arguing that the homeopathy ‘hypothesis’ has been disproved, at least to an extent sufficient to discourage further trials. "
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11304
Psorinum Therapy in Treating Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Carcinoma (NSCLC): A Phase-II Single Arm Clinical Trial
Chatterjie, 2010
Inflammatory Process Modulation by Homeopathic Arnica montana 6CH: The Role of Individual Variation
Kawakami, 2011
Low-grade Inflammation in Chronic Disease: An Integrative Pathophysiology Anticipated by Homeopathy
Adler, 2011
OTH, this interesting article was printed in the Telegraph today, March 5, 2011:
"Millions of NHS patients have been treated with controversial drugs on the basis of 'fraudulent research' by one of the world's leading anaesthetists, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Joachim Boldt is at the centre of a criminal investigation amid allegations that he may have forged up to 90 crucial studies on the treatment."
http://avilian.co.uk
RESULTS: The adherence to RCT methodology could result in such trials completely disrupting the formation or survival of any three-way PPR entangled state."
In any case a little sunshine and a homeopathic remedy appear as least as effective as SSRI's for depression ; could they also be as effective in the treatment of osteopenia as the commonly given drugs.?
I am not a quantum physicist but I would *love* to see one weight in on that article. I suspect that it was articles such as that which prompted Rosenblum and Kuttner to write Quantum Enigma.
Of the 19 times that article was cited in publications indexed by Web of Science, only 1 was in a reputable journal. That sole citation was to support the following statement:
"Homeopathic physicians seem to
clutch onto the straws of a series
of poorly designed or underpowered
studies to retain their credibility or
claim that the randomized controlled
trial is an inappropriate methodology
to assess their belief system in the
name of postmodern relativism."
And their response:
"We wonder whether any kind of
evidence would persuade homeopathic
physicians of their self-delusion and
challenge them to design a methodologically
sound trial, which if negative would finally
persuade them to shut up shop."
Source: Baum, M and E. Erst (2009), "Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?", 122 Am. J. Med. 11:973-974 (doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.03.038)
"Conspicuous by its absence: the Memory of Water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy”
http://www.badscience.net/2000/01/journal-club-conspicuous-by-its-absence-the-memory-of-water-macro-entanglement-and-the-possibility-of-homeopathy/
While Samuel Hahnemann in the days before scientific medicine may have had an excuse for just making up a theory and assuming it to be true, Milgrom has no such excuse. Since RCTs don't give him the answers he wants, Milgrom decides to make up fanciful, sciencey sounding excuses. Not content to claim that water is made in to magic homeopathic water that affects magic vital force (none of which homeopaths can actually detect) he posits a magic three way entanglement between doctor, patient and homeopathic remedy, following the principle, "If all else fails, just pull stuff de novo out of your--um--brain."
Check out Orac's take down:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/your_friday_dose_of_woo_a_homeopathic_jo.php
Basically, in the paper Lionel Milgrom (a Director of the Society of Homeopaths) essentially admits that homeopathy doesn't work:
"Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yet to deliver unequivocal results demonstrating the efficacy (or otherwise) of homeopathic remedies and individualized homeopathic prescribing. "
But rather than say "Science Works! Homeopathy is just a placebo!" and move move on to studying real medicine, Milgrom decides it just couldn't be that homeopathy is wrong. How could a 200 year-old, pre-scientific theory of disease and treatment be wrong? No, that just isn't possible to him. Instead he decides that RCTs must not work because they don't give him the answers he wants. So he just makes stuff up and posits that there is a magic 3-way "entanglement" created by the patient, practitioner and the remedy (PPR)--based on some vague invocation of quantum theory. And he further posits that somehow the magic "entanglement" is broken by proper randomized placebo trials. I guess the treatment magically knows it is part of a controlled trial and just refuses to work, even for the non-placebo track--you know, the way God refuses to work for prayer studies, doesn't like to be tricked into revealing himself (check the Hitchickers Guide to the Universe for why that would be bad...) Who knows? Lionel Milgrom certainly doesn't.
My money is on: "No" and "Yes", respectively.
There are many ways to attack Homeopathy - but the skeptics continue to do it the wrong way because they fear? a direct assault on its key foundations - the reports, case studies and analyses, in some cases reported in medical journals with a continuity of over a century. What do these so called skeptics of Homeopathy do instead? They foam at the mouth about obviously speculative quantum theories, ignore pharmacological research by M. Ennis clearly showing biological effects from high dilutions or else try to discredit it by falsely claiming other labs have never repeated it, or else try to point us to some unpublished BBC documentary that, as she clearly exposed afterwards, did NOT follow her clearly established testing protocol or else they engage in misrepresentation, innuendo, or tell everyone that the Homeopaths are "lying". How pathetic.
Is THIS the skepticism to be expected from rational, objective and scientifically aware respondents??
Crack open a Homeopathic repertory, seek out contradictions, tell us why when a remedy is used, repeatedly on different patients with certain characteristics, in different parts of the world, for certain symptom patterns, that same remedy cures the patient - in acute conditions the cure or relief follows often quite quickly after its administration. Please don't resort to pathetic placebo rationalizations and stop playing armchair scientists - let the real scientists do their work.
Now skepticize. Try to do it right.
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/03/director-of-the-society-of-homeopaths-threatens-libel-action-against-paul-offit.html
This is why a number of jurisdictions are considering and/or implementing legislation preventing or summarily dismissing SLAPPs (strategic litigation against public policy).
The problem the plaintiff will have is that:
1) the defence of fair comment will likely apply; and,
2) truth is a complete defence to an action in defamation.
On a positive note, the Society of Homeopaths will likely have sufficient funds to pay the significant costs award that will likely follow.
England is a cost-shifting jurisdiction, which means that the plaintiff will be ordered to pay the defendant's costs in the litigation, and, on the face of it, truth and the qualified public interest privilege appear to apply.