Jury Clears Homeopathy

/

Federal jury clears producer, marketer, and seller of homeopathic products in $255m class … Tucker Ellis

“Bell testified about her scientific studies in multiple chemical sensitivity and homeopathy, including how “nanoparticles” and “nanobubbles” can have an effect in biological cells. Dr. Bell opined, “It is very clear that nanoparticles in low doses are capable of capable of creating hermetic effects…similar to vaccine.” Dr. Bell explained how “hormesis” is a medical principle that describes how small doses of a substance can trigger the opposite effect of high doses of the same substance.”

USA September 18 2015

In a class action of importance to producers, marketers, and sellers of homeopathic products, on Friday, September 18, 2015, a federal jury in the false advertising trial of Allen, et al. v. Hylands, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01150 (“Hylands”) took less than a day to find defendants did not breach any express warranty or violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code sections 1750 et seq.

The putative class plaintiffs sued defendants Hylands, Inc. and Standard Homeopathic Company alleging they made false and misleading representations about the effectiveness of the active ingredients in 12 homeopathic products produced, marketed, and sold by the defendants throughout the United States.

Homeopathic products are derived from botanical, mineral or biological substances and are classified as either over-the-counter (OTC) or prescription medicines. In contrast to conventional (allopathic) medicines, homeopathic remedies are predicated in part on the “principle of dilutions” under which active ingredients are thought to be more clinically useful or effective when they are significantly diluted, typically with purified water or an alcohol solution.

Homeopathic remedies and their packaging are not reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Homeopathic remedies, however, are classified as drugs under, and subject to, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and thus, must comply with the labeling requirements of the Act. The FDA has stated that it is not aware of any scientific evidence that homeopathic products are effective.

Back in August 2014, a California federal district court judge certified a nationwide class of purchasers of 10 of the products covering February 2008 to the present. The plaintiffs claimed defendants’ 12 homeopathic products, including some intended for infants and children, did not work as advertised because they were so diluted that the ingredients were “effectively non-existent” and the products were therefore not effective for their intended uses. The plaintiffs also alleged the homeopathic products labeling claims of “100% Natural,” “All Natural,” and “Natural” were untrue as the products purportedly contained synthetic chemicals, synthetically derived or chemically reduced elements, artificially produced elements, and/or dangerous or potentially dangerous ingredients.

The trial in Hylands spanned approximately two weeks and included expert testimony from both sides. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Noel Rose, the director of John Hopkins’ Center of Autoimmune Disease Research testified as a medical expert, having reviewed materials provided by the plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as his own research into clinical and compilation studies, expert reports, published journal reports and the Hyland’s products and their labels. Dr. Rose stated, “[In] my opinion, there is no sound scientific or medical evidence that they provide any benefit to patients with medical conditions, such as those described and indicated on the labels, beyond the placebo effect.”

Defendants kicked off their defense by calling Dr. Iris Bell, a former Harvard psychiatry instructor and holder of a doctorate degree from Stanford University in neuro- and biobehavioral sciences who has consulted with Highlands, Inc. to design clinical trials. Bell testified about her scientific studies in multiple chemical sensitivity and homeopathy, including how “nanoparticles” and “nanobubbles” can have an effect in biological cells. Dr. Bell opined, “It is very clear that nanoparticles in low doses are capable of capable of creating hermetic effects…similar to vaccine.” Dr. Bell explained how “hormesis” is a medical principle that describes how small doses of a substance can trigger the opposite effect of high doses of the same substance.

Although the plaintiffs initially sought full refunds worth $350 million, plaintiffs’ counsel wrapped up closing arguments with a demand of $255 million for allegedly tricking consumers into purchasing “simple sugar pills” that provide no medical benefit. The jury of six women and three men did not agree, and needed less than a day to deliberate.

Tucker Ellis – Ronie M. Schmelz, Matthew I. Kaplan and Ndubisi Ezeolu

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7d9b009a-e041-422c-b9cc-bb0437958523

Management of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections

/

Management of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections by Different Medical Practices, Including Homeopathy, and Consumption of Antibiotics in Primary Care: The EPI3 Cohort Study in France 2007–2008

Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda,1,2,* Bernard Bégaud,3 Michel Rossignol,4,5 Bernard Avouac,1 France Lert,6 Frederic Rouillon,7 Jacques Bénichou,8,9 Jacques Massol,10 Gerard Duru,11 Anne-Marie Magnier,12 Lucien Abenhaim,13,14 and Didier Guillemot15,16
C. Mary Schooling, Editor
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
Abstract
Background

Prescribing of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) varies substantially in primary care.
Objectives

To describe and compare antibiotic and antipyretic/anti-inflammatory drugs use, URTI symptoms’ resolution and occurrence of potentially-associated infections in patients seeking care from general practitioners (GPs) who exclusively prescribe conventional medications (GP-CM), regularly prescribe homeopathy within a mixed practice (GP-Mx), or are certified homeopathic GPs (GP-Ho).
Method

The EPI3 survey was a nationwide population-based study of a representative sample of 825 GPs and their patients in France (2007–2008). GP recruitment was stratified by self-declared homeopathic prescribing preferences. Adults and children with confirmed URTI were asked to participate in a standardized telephone interview at inclusion, one-, three- and twelve-month follow up. Study outcomes included medication consumption, URTI symptoms’ resolution and potentially-associated infections (sinusitis or otitis media/externa) as reported by patients. Analyses included calibration to account for non-respondents and groups were compared using multivate analyses adjusting for baseline differences with a propensity score.
Results

518 adults and children with URTI (79.3% rhinopharyngitis) were included (36.9% response rate comparable between groups). As opposed to GP-CM patients, patients in the GP-Ho group showed significantly lower consumption of antibiotics (Odds ratio (OR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27–0.68) and antipyretic/anti-inflammatory drugs (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.38–0.76) with similar evolution in related symptoms (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.64–2.10). An excess of potentially-associated infections (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 0.90–3.20) was observed in the GP-Ho group (not statistically significant). No difference was found between GP-CM and GP-Mx patients.
Conclusion

Patients who chose to consult GPs certified in homeopathy used less antibiotics and antipyretic/anti-inflammatory drugs for URTI than those seen by GPs prescribing conventional medications. No difference was observed in patients consulting GPs within mixed-practice. A non-statistically significant excess was estimated through modelling for associated infections in the GP-Ho group and needs to be further studied.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960096/

WWNLD What Would Nobel Laureates Do?

/

What Nobel Laureates said on Homeopathy June 5, 2012 · homeopathy

homeopathiccures ♦ October 5, 2015 ♦ Leave a comment

by Dr. Nancy Malik BHMS

Nobel laureates, doctors, scientists, professors and science writers had plenty to say on homeopathy.

Nobel Laureates agreed that there’s strong evidence for Homeopathy [click to tweet]. Homeopathic remedies act as they are supposed to. By the end of year 2013, there have been 5 Nobel laureates in support of Homeopathy, 1 in opposition and 857 have not stated any opinion on Homeopathy.

1. Emil Adolf von Behring (1905)

The Father of Immunology

Emil Adolf von Behring (1854–1917) won the first Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1901 for his discovery of the diphtheria antitoxin.

FATHER OF IMMUNOLOGY Emil Behring asked to suppress his successful work on Homeopathy. He discovered that homeopathic medicine enhances immunogenic activity. Behring wrote: “Samuel Hahnemann was right when he took his starting point in the symptoms of patients.”

Ref: Coulter, Harris L, Divided Legacy: A History of the Schism in Medical Thought, Volume IV: Twentieth-Century Medicine: The Bacteriological Era. The North Atlantic Books, Berkley, 1994, p. 96

In 1892 Behring actually experimented with serial (homeopathic) dilutions and found paradoxically enhanced immunogenic activity, but he was advised to suppress this experiment due to the aid and comfort it would provide to homeopaths. Only after he won the Nobel Prize did he feel comfortable in making public these experiments. In 1905, Behring admitted that colleagues remonstrated with him not to make such remarks public ‘since it was grist for the mill of homeopathy’.

Ref: ibid p.97

Behring broke from orthodox medical tradition by recognizing the value of the homeopathic law of similar in 1905

Ref: Dana Ullman http://bit.ly/HdOryq

He asserted that vaccination is, in part, derived from the homeopathic principle of similars. “In spite of all scientific speculations and experiments regarding smallpox vaccination, Jenner’s discovery remained an erratic blocking medicine, till the biochemically thinking Pasteur, devoid of all medical classroom knowledge, traced the origin of this therapeutic block to a principle which cannot better be characterized than by Hahnemann’s word: homeopathic. Indeed, what else causes the epidemiological immunity in sheep, vaccinated against anthrax than the influence previously exerted by a virus, similar in character to that of the fatal anthrax virus? And by what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence, exerted by a similar virus than by Hahnemann’s word “homeopathy”? I am touching here upon a subject anathematized till very recently by medical penalty: but if I am to present these problems in historical illumination, dogmatic imprecations must not deter me….only the road of Homeopathy lead to my goal.”

Ref: Behring, A. Emil von, Moderne phthisiogenetische und phthisoitherapeutische: Probleme in historischer Beleuchtung. Margurg: Selbsteverlag des Verfassers, 1905, http://bit.ly/YVpoZs

Behring concludes, ‘If I were confronted with a hitherto incurable disease and could see no way to treat it other than with homeopathy, I can assure you that I would not be deterred from following this course by dogmatic considerations’.

Ref: http://sueyounghistories.com/archives/2008/07/08/emil-adolf-von-behring-and-homeopathy-2/

2. Brian David Josephson (1997)
Nobel Laureate – Physics 1973

Nobel Laureate – Physics 1973

“Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.”

Dr. Brian D. Josephson’s (Emeritus Professor, University of Cambridge) responding to an article in the New Scientist (October 18, 1997) Ref: How Homeopathic Medicines Work: Nanopharmacology At Its Best 3. Luc Antoine Montagnier (2009)

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008

“Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier is to science what homeopathy is to medicine” ~Nancy Malik

Interdisciplinary Sciences: Life Sciences (SpringerL­ink)
Nanostructures in highly diluted biological samples of bacteria and virus DNA produces electromagnetic signals (2009) FULL TEXT

Luc Montagnier observed that potentised bacteria and virus DNA sequence emits electro-magnetic signals (low frequency radio waves) at 5C and 6C potencies and forms specific nano-structures which lasts 48 hours and are responsible for the EM effects measured. The EM signature changed with dilution levels but was unaffected by the initial concentration and remained even after the remaining DNA fragments were destroyed by chemical agents. However the EM signal was sensitive to heat over 70 degrees C and freezing -80 degrees C. Not only that, DNA sequences were recreated from its EM signature in pure water. That means EM signals were transmitted to pure water (that never had a DNA in it) placed in a container nearby in 18 hours. He reproduced his results 12 times.

Discussion on Luc Montagnier paper by Society of Homeopaths, Institute of Science in Society,Homeopathy World Community

Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist said about homeopathy, “High Dilutions of something are not nothing…”

Nobel laureate Montagnier says homeopathic medicine is “real” phenomenon & Benveniste is today’s Galileo

Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier escapes intellectu­al terrorism and he currently works as a full-time professor at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China. He, in an interview in Science (24 Dec 2010) said, “”I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste’s results (showing effects from homeopathic doses), but they [Europe] are afraid to publish it [homeopathy] because of the intellectu¬¬al terror from people who don’t understand it.” He concluded the interview by saying, “These are real phenomena which deserve further study.”

It shows intellectu­al terror the so-called science puts up on homeopathy and homeopaths

Water has a memory

Nobel Prize Winner does homeopathic study; with supportive findings.

Nobel Prize winner reports effects of homeopathic dilutions

Luc Montagnier delivered talk on “Electromagnetic Waves & Water Properties” in UNESCO Headquarter on 8th Oct 2014

4. Ervin Laszlo (2004)
Hungary

Twice nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 2004/5

“Water has a remarkable capacity to register and conserve information, as indicated by, amongst other things, homeopathic remedies that remain effective even when not a single molecule of the original substance remains in a dilution”,

-Dr. Ervin Laszlo, Professor of ‘Systems Theory’ and the author of book ‘Science and the Akashic Field’, 2004, p. 53.

5. Rabindranath Tagore (1936)
indian writer

Nobel Prize in Literature 1913

“I have long been an ardent believer in the science of Homeopathy and i fell happy that it has got now a greater hold in India than even in the land of its origin. It is not merely a collection of a few medicines but a real science with a rational philosophy as its base. We require more scientific interest and inquiry into the matter with special stress upon the Indian environment.”

Ref: Bagchi, A. K. Rabindranath Tagore and His Medical World. New Delhi: Konark Publishers, 2000

6. Mother Teresa (1950)
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu

Nobel Peace Prize 1979

Mother Teresa added homeopathic care to the services at her missions. She opened her first charitable homeopathic dispensary in Calcutta in 1950. At present, four charitable homeopathic dispensaries are run under the guidance of the Mother’s Missionaries of Charity

Ref: Dana Ullman, The Homeopathic Revolution: WhyFamous people and cultural heroes love homeopathy

7. Mahatma Gandhi (1936)

Nominated 5 times Nobel Peace Prize between 1937-1948

“Homeopathy is the latest and refined method of treating patients economically and nonviolently. Government must encourage and patronize it in our country. Late Dr. Hahnemann was a man of superior intellectual power and means of saving of human life having a unique medical nerve. I bow before his skill and the Herculean and humanitarian labour he did. His memory wakes us again and you are to follow him, but the opponents hate the existence of the principles and practice of homeopathy which in reality cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and it is beyond all doubt safer and more economical and the most complete medical science.”
-Mahatama Gandhi, 30 Aug 1936

Ref: Das, 1950; All India Homeopathic Medical Conference, 1968, http://sueyounghistories.com/archives/2009/07/26/mohandas-karamchand-gandhi-1869-%E2%80%93-1948/

“Homeopathy is the most modern and the most intelligent way to economically and nonviolent sick to treat. The government must promote in our country and support.”

-Ghandi cited in Martin Schmitz (ed.), Strömungen der Homöopathie, KVC Verlag Essen, Essen 2002

Gandhi also persuaded people to study homeopathy

https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/nobel-prize-winners-on-homeopathy/

Homeopathy and ACUTE TRAUMA PTSD and addictions etc... published from HPathy 2015

/

ACUTE TRAUMA PTSD

REMEDIES

  • Aconite (as above)
  • Androctonos (Scorpion)

 

ANDROCTONOS

  • Over confidence
  • potentially dangerous, either to self or to others.
  • A sense of adolescent omnipotence, of invulnerability emerged.
  • Contemptuous. Want of moral feeling.
  • Quarrelsome. Unsympathetic.
  • Deceitful and defiant.
  • Delusion they are going to be assaulted.
  • Malicious with desire to injure.
  • Cruel and unfeeling.
  • Cold knife-edged violence, desire to stab things.
  • Suspiciousness.
  • Fear of one’s own impulses.

Lack of control.

  • Uncontrollable emotions. Or: complete inability to express emotions; can’t weep.
  • Wants to control others.

 

One of the main features of the remedy is a total lack of guilt and remorse, unfeeling. This is more so than in Anacardium which is more like snake remedies in that there is a strong sense of duality.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

  • The Swiss government has determined that homeopathy is the most cost effective method of medical treatment for ‘ambulatory’ patients.
  • “From 1999 to 2005, 5 methods of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) applied by physicians were provisionally included in the mandatory Swiss basic health insurance. Within this process, an evaluation of cost-effectiveness is required.”
  • Homeopathy was one of the five methods and it turns out that it is the most cost effective, more than conventional medicine or any other complimentary medicine. Patients reported a better quality of the patient-physician relationship and fewer adverse side effects than with all other complementary medical approaches.
  • The positive general conclusion of the study was: “This study uses a health system perspective and demonstrates at least equal or better cost-effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine in the setting of Swiss ambulatory care. CAM can therefore be seen as a valid complement to conventional medicine within Swiss health care.”

 

Homeopathy may not be easy, but it’s cheap!

About the author

Elena Cecchetto

Elena Cecchetto DCH, CCH, HMC, RSHom(NA), MSc (Cand)
El Cecchetto is on the founding board of Side by Side Homeopathy, a group of Homeopaths who are helping people in the Downtown Eastside with any of their health concerns. Some of the common complaints she helps people to address include anxiety, PTSD, depression, migraines, digestion concerns and insomnia. Her most happy moments are when she hears back from new parents about getting the colic, teething, nursing, sleeping, coughing, and rashes successfully addressed with homeopathic care. Her Homeopathic Pediatrics studies have been supported by extra conferences with Dr. Sunil Anand and Louis Klein.

El makes is very involved in Homeopathic associations such as the West Coast Homeopathic Society (WCHS), the BC Society of Homeopaths (BCSH) and the Canadian Society of Homeopaths (CSH).

Schuessler's Tissue Salts - I am reminding myself of remedies for inflammation

/

 

Schuessler's Tissue Salts

It was in 1873 that Dr. Schuessler published his first article about the biochemic form of medicine. He identified a basic understanding about this medical view. It is based on three main principles.

 

The human body contains twelve vital inorganic elements which are responsible for maintenance of normal cell function.

 

 

When from some cause, one or more of these elements become deficient the normal cell function or metabolism is disturbed and a condition arises known as disease.By supplying to the system the lacking elements in the form of Schuessler Biochemic Remedies normal cell function and health can be restored.

 

Biochemistry is derived from Greek and means Bio (Life) and chemistry. Dr Schuessler meant his system was the chemistry of life. His view was that the body needed particular inorganic compounds that were normally present in the body to be in their proper amounts. When the body became diseased, the restoration of the Biochemic salts would heal the diseased condition.

 

These inorganic cell salts are the building blocks of all organic matter in the body and Dr. Schuessler set out to identify them and use them as tissue restorers. He set out to identify the diseases associated with the mineral deficiencies. In his findings it may be necessary to treat a single expression of disease with more than one tissue salt or Biochemic remedy.

 

In order for the body to assimilate these cell salts they needed to be triturated so they were easily absorbed by the body. In Schuessler’s treatise he did not specify the exact process but most cell salts are available in the 6X potency. This is where the overlap into homeopathic materia medica happened. Schuessler did not perform provings on his preparations. So most of the information of the homeopathic remedies that are of his original cell salts are from observation and anecdotal evidence.

 

The twelve Biochemic Cell Salts and some of their main indications are:

 

Calcarea Flourica - This works with connective tissues and albumen making elastic fibre. It is the main constituent in tooth enamel and the elastic fiber of all muscular tissue and connective tissue. It is good for conditions of blood vessels, hemorrhoids, varicose veins and hardened glands. The symptoms of this remedy are worse in damp weather and relieved by rubbing.

Calcarea Phosphorica - It is a constituent of the bones, teeth, connective tissue, blood corpuscles and gastric juice. It helps give solidity to bones and teeth. This is a valuable childhood remedy as it has much to do with development of the body. It is useful in all bone diseases and diseases of the teeth. It is especially useful in convalescence after acute disease. Aids in the union of bone fractures. Cold, motion, change of weather, and getting wet aggravate symptoms. Relieved by rest and warmth.

Calcarea Sulphurica - This inorganic salt is found in the skin and the blood. It acts as a preventative of cell disintegration and suppuration. It is indicated in the last stages of suppuration and is especially good in the treatment of catarrh, boils, carbuncles,ulcers and abscesses. Silica hastens the process whereas Calc Sulph completes the process. It’s indications are thick, heavy pussy yellow discharges, sometimes streaked with blood. Aggravated by getting wet.

Ferrum Phosphoricum - This is the remedy for inflammatory conditions. It is found in blood and gives blood it’s red color. It carries oxygen to all parts of the body. It gives strength to vessels and arteries of the circulatory system. It is indicated in relaxed conditions of the muscular tissue and abnormal conditions of the blood. It is useful in all inflammations before exudation has begun. It is tonic for anemia. Hot face, fever, quick pulse, thirst, redness of parts. It is aggravated by motion and relieved by cold.

Kali Muriaticum - This cell salt unites with albumen and forms fibrin which is found in all tissues in the body except bone. When deficient in the body it causes a discharge of thick, white, sticky, character from the mucous membranes. The person will also have a thickly coated tongue. Chiefly used in catarrhal conditions. Colds, croup, diarrhea, bronchitis. Symptoms are worse from motion and rich or fatty foods.

Kali Phosphoricum - This is the great nerve and brain remedy. It is main constituent of brain matter when it combines with albumen. When ever a disease can be traced to a nerve degeneracy think of Kali Phospricum. Indications are loss of mental vigor, poor memory, depression, nervousness, brain-fag. Other indications are bad breath, diarrhea, dizziness from nervous exhaustion. Symptoms are aggravated by noise, mental or physical exertion, initial motion after rest.and cold air. Better from gentle motion, eating, rest and mental diversion.

 

Kali Sulphuricum - This cell salt carries oxygen to the skin. It furnishes the basis for health skin and scalp.It’s secretions are sticky and slimy.

I would also love to see Ananda More's film about homeopathy in Vancouver

/

See her succinct article here. It fills my heart with good stuff.

Attack of the Killer Pseudoskeptics

I’ve hit that rite of passage – that thorn in the side of every homeopath in the public eye.  When anonymous, self-proclaimed skeptics start to harass you with email, Twitter, and Facebook posts that refer to poorly-designed studies in order to prove that homeopathy doesn’t work. These people are demonstrating blatant hypocrisy when they use cherry-picked, fundamentally flawed studies to support their unscientific perspectives while simultaneously accusing homeopaths of the same.  If the same standards or faulty methods were used to study pharmaceutical medicine, we would find very few medications that could be termed evidence-based!

What do I use the term “pseudoskeptic”? Well, first, because they love to use the word “pseudoscience” as a derogatory umbrella term for any research whose results don’t fit into their limited paradigm. Second, because a real skeptic is someone who critically analyzes the data from both sides with an open mind, a true scientist unprejudiced to finding the unexpected. Pseudoskeptics pretend to genuinely have an open mind in order to hide their actual agenda of ridiculing and discrediting. They fail to apply the same critical eye to research that defends the orthodox perspective.

So the most recent link I’ve been receiving and have seen on social media is the following:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/homeopathy-therapeutic-dead-end-systematic-review-no-evidence-it-works-a6884356.html

The above article refers to a study published by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Now before I pass you to the experts and their explanations as to why this study is fatally inadequate, I would like to quietly point out that the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal – mirroring the skeptics’ favourite line of attack when it comes to homeopathic studies.

I would like to raise the question as to why studies like the one above receive so much media attention, while peer-reviewed, quality studies that have a positive outcome for homeopathy are completely ignored by mainstream media? For example, how many of you non-homeopaths out there are familiar withDr. Robert Mathie’s systematic review of individualized homeopathy – the only meta-analysis of homeopathy to consider model validity in its study design? This means that he only included studies in which homeopathy is studied in the way homeopaths actually practice in the real world. No other meta-analysis has done that!

Now let’s listen to what the folks at the Homeopathic Research Institute have to say about the NHMRC’s systematic review of homeopathy (read in blue). You can read their extensive concerns about the study here.

We maintain that the conclusions of the NHMRC report are inconsistent with the evidence.

The inaccuracy of the NHMRCs conclusions stem primarily from one fundamental flaw at the heart of this report – the NHMRC reviewers considered the results of all trials for one condition together as a whole, even though the individual trials were assessing very different types of homeopathic treatment.

To illustrate this flaw, the NHMRC reviewers asked, “Is homeopathy effective for condition A?’, working from the premise that a positive trial showing that one homeopathic treatment is effective is somehow negated by a negative trial which shows that a completely different homeopathic treatment for that same condition is ineffective. This is a bizarre and unprecedented way of assessing scientific evidence. In conventional research the question asked would be, “Is treatment X effective for condition A?”, not “Is conventional medicine effective for condition A?” based on combining the results of all drug trials together. Some treatments work, some don’t. The whole point of medical research is to establish which treatments are useful and which are of no value. This is no different in homeopathy.

So, this is like saying, Let’s see if pharmaceutical medicine is good for headaches. In my hypothetical systematic review we’ll examine a study that shows NSAIDs work for headaches, then look at another study that shows blood pressure medication doesn’t, and another study that says statin medicines don’t help headaches. I then conclude that pharmaceutical medicine is not effective for treating headaches.

Secondly, we are deeply perplexed as to the reasons for the exclusion of some of the best evidence for key clinical conditions. In brief:

  • Jacobs et al performed meta-analysis a meta-analysis of the treatment of childhood diarrhea using homeopathy in 2003, N=242 in placebo controlled trials, p-value = 0.008. This meta-analysis was excluded … why? [Link]
  • Wiesenauer & Lüdtke conducted a meta-analysis into the treatment of hayfever in 1996, N=752 in placebo controlled RCTs, p-value <0.0001. This meta-analysis was excluded. Again we ask ourselves why? [Link]
  • Schneider et al conducted a meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials of homeopathy compared to usual care for the treatment of vertigo, N=1388, non-inferiority was clearly demonstrated. Again excluded, again why? [Link]

Now let’s hear Dana Ullman’s critique of the study’s parameters. Dana is referring to a BMJ blog entry foundhere:

What this BMJ article conveniently failed to report and what the Australian government’s press material failed to acknowledge was that ANY study that with less than 150 subjects was deemed “inadequate” by this report, and thus, the dozens of studies that have shown the efficacy of homeopathy in treating many ailments were totally thrown out and ignored, including many “high quality” randomized double-blind, placebo controlled trials that have been published in The Lancet, BMJ, Cancer, Pediatrics, Chest, Rheumatology, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, European Journal of Pediatrics, and many others!

 

Further, unless there were at least three studies conducted by three separate groups of researchers, with each study having over 150 subjects, the results were deemed to be “unreliable.”

 

By not acknowledging these arbitrary guidelines, the BMJ and the Australian government are showing “bad faith” and are purposefully seeking to misinform the medical community and the general public.

 

Based on these definitions of what “adequate” and “reliable” research, the vast majority of conventional drugs on the market today would also be deemed to be INEFFECTIVE and UNPROVEN.

 

In fact, when the BMJ’s “Clinical Evidence” analyzed common medical treatments to evaluate which are supported by sufficient reliable evidence, they reviewed approximately 3,000 treatments and found only 11% were found to be beneficial (1). It should be noted and emphasized that the BMJ deemed 20 subjects to be a more reasonable guideline (2). If using the similar guidelines as the Australian government, only between 1% and 5% of medical treatments would be deemed to be “effective,” and virtually every surgical procedure would be consider “unproven.” Is Glasziou or the BMJ asserting that virtually all of medical treatment and surgical procedure be deemed unproven and ineffective? If not, then why use unrealistic and arbitrary guidelines for evaluating homeopathy? Are some extremely serious biases in evidence here instead of good science?

 

Also, Paul Glasziou doesn’t seem to understand the real implications of his assertion that any study that has a P-value of .05 would suggest that this treatment had a 5% chance of occurring by sheer random chance. Based on the BMJ’s review of clinical research in the entire field of medicine having less than 5% efficacy, it could easily be assumed that many of these studies may have happened by chance, thereby suggesting that there is virtually no evidence for the entire field of medical treatment.

 

For the record, Dr. Glasziou has conveniently ignored the many studies testing homeopathic treatment that has significantly better than a p-value of .05. Chest published a study on the homeopathic treatment of people with COPD with a p-value of 0.0001 (3). David Reilly and his team at the University of Glasgow conducted a series of four studies on patients with various types of respiratory allergies, two of which were published in the BMJ and one in the Lancet. Although their studies included over 200 patients, no single study included more than 150 patients, and therefore, ALL of the evidence from these high-quality trials were completely ignored, even though a review of the four trials found a p-value of 0.0007 (4). Even an editorial reviewing Reilly’s research has acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that these results are due to random happenstance (5).

 

Or wasn’t it convenient that the Australian government’s report ignored a study on the homeopathic treatment of people with pancreatic cancer that showed that 39% of patients with this extremely serious chronic illness survived five years (6), even though no other study has ever found a five-year survival rate of greater than 1%. For the record, this study was not even considered by Dr. Glasziou’s report because it reviewed only 44 patients and was not a placebo-controlled trial, and yet, I challenge Dr. Glasziou or anyone to report results anywhere that can be comparable.

 

Courts of law do not determine guilty or innocence only based on double-blind or placebo controlled trials. They report on all evidence.

 

References:

 

(1) What conclusions have Clinical Evidence drawn about what works, what doesn’t based on randomised controlled trial evidence? BMJ, 2015. 

 

(2) Nuts, bolts, and tiny little screws: how Clinical Evidence works. BMJ, 2015.

 

(3) Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. 

 

(4) Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, 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. 

 

(5) This week in the BMJ. Homoeopathic dilutions may be better than placebo. BMJ 2000;321:0.

 

(6) Chatterjee A, Biswas J, Chatterjee A, Bhattacharya S, Mukhopadhyay B, Mandal S. Psorinum therapy in treating stomach, gall bladder, pancreatic, and liver cancers: a prospective clinical study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:724743. An abstract of the above study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology

I tried to shorten Dana’s comments, but I found it all pretty relevant. So, in conclusion – you have to take everything from the pseudoskeptics with a grain of salt. The only way to sift through all the nonsense is to be able to identify what makes for good science and what makes for scientism. Unfortunately, with all of their convenient omissions, obfuscations, and failure to comprehend basic statistical principals, they don’t make that very easy.

Ananda

http://magicpillsmovie.com/pseudo-skeptics/

Just One Drop - the story behind the homeopathy controversy by Health Action Network Society (HANS)

/

Just One Drop - In Vancouver, October 17th, 2017

by Health Action Network Society (HANS)

Description

Part of the Health Action Film Series, JUST ONE DROP tells the little known story of homeopathy: the most controversial system of medicine. To many, homeopathy seems implausible. They fear it is purely a placebo effect or worse, a form of deception or quackery. Yet, homeopathy has been around for over 200 years and is used by millions of people around the world. The film explores the controversy, reveals the rich history, dispels myths and misconceptions, and asks whether or not homeopathy been given a fair shake.

Panel discussion to follow screening.

The Just One Drop trailer may be viewed here.

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/just-one-drop-the-story-behind-the-homeopathy-controversy-tickets-37436307002

 

 

Homeopathic Medicine Controversial Medicine

Another Homeopathy Documentary in the works

/ Access Natural Healing Centre/

Includes worldwide 'visual testimonials'! A much anticipated release.

People who have used homeopathy have a lot of positive and dramatic stuff to say about it!

“Very simple, it DOES work. No need to have faith; when you get the right remedy it works. I suffered with 7 years of Chronic Fatigue syndrome that was completely cured with homeopathy.”
— Happy Homeopathic Client
“I was amazed since my parents have always used homeopathic medication for hayfever and other allergies.”
— Skeptic
#HomeopathyWorks

#HomeopathyWorks

“[With] this recent batch of remedies... J.A. has continued to make remarkable progress. During the course of the last month he has eaten foods with egg and dairy in them without any reaction! Previous months, we conquered re-introducing wheat successfully. He has maintained good health as well. Thank you for everything you are doing.”
— I.A., father of a 17-year-old who previously had lifelong allergic reactions to wheat, eggs and dairy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTavOuvb0Q