More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[SYLVESTER1592]

I recently read an account of an orthopedist who retired from the military. S/He said that supervisors wanted him/her to clear patients off medical care. The solution, in some cases, was to refer them to chiropractors. Not because chiro is legitimate; but because it solved the immediate problem. Many people present in doctors' offices with no diagnosis/treatment available. Shipping them off to homeopaths is easy, as is homeopathy adopted by the doctor. The office visits last longer; but the doctor is being paid by the hour.

Yes... back problems are notorious. The patient's desire for a diagnosis and treatment is so overwhelming that doctors sometimes "chicken out" and choose to give in to the patient's request for an alternative treatment they found on the internet instead of explaining what is happening to them. As long as they know for sure it won't do any harm and the patient will return for their check up, they feel the doctor-patient relationship is more important to insure proper care. I don't know this particular case, but I imagine it is something similar.

SYL

 

[Dana Ullman]

Well, several of us agree on something important: modern physicians are NOT scientists. This is an important point, and I'm glad that we have common ground here.

If you think about it, how many conventional drugs have stood the test of time?

I am rarely surprised to read about a new drugs seemingly wonderful ability to temporarily provide some relief of symptoms or a disease, but I am never surprised when further research uncovers the fact that the drug causes some serious side effects...and then, later on, more research uncovers the fact that the drug causes more harm than good...but we are assured and reassured that this dangerous drug has now been replaced by a new drug that has (at least initially) been found to provide seemingly real relief of symptoms...until further research uncovers the same pattern that we have all seen before.

I defined quackery as the promotion of ineffective treatment by providers who claim fantastic results and who charge a lot of money. Wow...perfect...this describes our own "medical industrial complex" perfectly.

And what is so so surprising here is that YOU people on this list seem to be the defenders of this conventional medical paradigm.

Dear Politas...I never (!) said that "homeopathic provings" prove homeopathic medicines to be effective. Homeopathic provings are experiments in which homeopaths conduct to determine what syndrome of symptoms a substance CAUSES and therefore what syndrome of symptoms it can cure in nanodoses. The point here is that homeopathy is primarily based on experimental toxicology, and this is in part why homeopathy has ALWAYS attracted the "educated elite" (all types of surveys have verified that users of homeopathic medicines are more educated than non-users).

As for Mr. Monkey...it seems that you disbelieve in Darwinian thinking because you have not yet evolved and are still asking the same tired and innane questions. Please evolve...for your own good.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Some real medicine from real science -- based on research done at Oxford University in the '40s and '50s researchers invented the Oral Rehydration Solution.

This was tested in the field in the '60s and '70s and proved to work.

See: http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/O_0045.htm
for a bit of history.

To quote our friends at Wiki: Between 1980 and 2000, ORT decreased the number of children under five dying of diarrhea from 4.6 million worldwide to 1.8 million—a 60% reduction. According to The Lancet (1978), ORT is "potentially the most important medical discovery of the 20th century".

ORT? Why it's just a solution of salt and sugar? In measurable quantities.

Rubbing the patient with water in which an atom or two of camphor once was present and giving him "one or two globules of the finest preparation of copper" just doesn't seem to cut it.

 

[fls]

Well, several of us agree on something important: modern physicians are NOT scientists. This is an important point, and I'm glad that we have common ground here.

Cute.

If you think about it, how many conventional drugs have stood the test of time?

Silly you. You should always know the answer to your rhetorical questions before you ask. Else you run the risk of looking silly.

The answer is 18,361.

I am rarely surprised to read about a new drugs seemingly wonderful ability to temporarily provide some relief of symptoms or a disease, but I am never surprised when further research uncovers the fact that the drug causes some serious side effects...and then, later on, more research uncovers the fact that the drug causes more harm than good...but we are assured and reassured that this dangerous drug has now been replaced by a new drug that has (at least initially) been found to provide seemingly real relief of symptoms...until further research uncovers the same pattern that we have all seen before.

Pesky things those effects.

I defined quackery as the promotion of ineffective treatment by providers who claim fantastic results and who charge a lot of money. Wow...perfect...this describes our own "medical industrial complex" perfectly.

Careful. Now that the conspiracy threads no longer show up on the main page, you'll lose whatever audience it is that you think you're playing to if you get this thread moved.

And what is so so surprising here is that YOU people on this list seem to be the defenders of this conventional medical paradigm.

You seem to think you are at some other place. Next time, ask for directions when you get lost.

Linda

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Well, several of us agree on something important: modern physicians are NOT scientists. This is an important point, and I'm glad that we have common ground here. ...

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I disagree. Medicine is still an academic study and rightfully so. I contest the idea that it is merely a trade... Exactly for the reasons you present. Conventional medicine has as one of its goals research and requires members of the medical community to contribute to the progress of medical sciences. Regrettably modern doctors forget this task too often or see it as a demeaning task or a distraction from their "real" work or as a part of a career building opportunity. The increasing complexity of medical research contributes to this phenomenon. This is a possible problem with evidence based medicine, the ability to interpret the evidence...
So, no I disagree, modern physicians are still scientists. Many of them have just forgotten how to do it...

This however, is a mistake that will in the end render the medical community toothless and incapable to handle emerging problems, relying on the conscious or interested few that have taken the task to engage in scientific work. It further makes them susceptible to the great many that aim to profit from the lack of skepticism and tools to interpret evidence and gain their support from misled patients rather then scientific proof. Luckily there are still interested few that differ from the majority and do deliver good work in several fields. Medical science progresses in small steps, but always on well-founded evidence. Of course it does not always succeed completely, hence the complexity of medical trials to evaluate possible effects and side-effects. This is a big difference with alternative medicine, which does not hold up in a well designed experiment yet.

I would not be so presumptuous as to claim that no alternative treatment could ever be effective, but I would like to see it happen. If you can prove that it does in a well-designed controlled blinded experiment and repeat it independently as is done in conventional medicine, that would certainly make my day. Past results make me wonder if it will ever happen, and after so many failures one could wonder if the negative results could ever outweigh the positives, but I'm not a cynic. I can still question myself and if there is some convincing evidence that some of this may be possible I'm all for testing it in a phase I/IIa/IIb trial and even a following phase III trial if the evidence holds up. Conventional medicine sometimes does and that's when we make progress. So eventhough it does not always give us the results we wish for, it still gives us the best results available and that is the best effort any physician can and should make for his/her patient.

SYL

 

[Dana Ullman]

Some real medicine from real science -- based on research done at Oxford University in the '40s and '50s researchers invented the Oral Rehydration Solution.

This was tested in the field in the '60s and '70s and proved to work.

See: http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/O_0045.htm
for a bit of history.

This IS one of the great contributions to public health, and because of my own background in public health, I appreciate it. However, did you know that there have been three randomized double-blind clinical trials published in peer-review journals that have used individually prescribed homeopathic medicines that improved upon the results of ORT?

Here's the reference to a meta-analysis of these three studies. Although the lead research was the same MD, the actual prescribers for each of the three trials were different homeopaths.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This meta-analysis was published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.

Its abstract:
Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jiménez-Pérez M, Crothers D.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a positive treatment effect of individualized homeopathic treatment for acute childhood diarrhea, but sample sizes were small and results were just at or near the level of statistical significance. Because all three studies followed the same basic study design, the combined data from these three studies were analyzed to obtain greater statistical power. METHODS: Three double blind clinical trials of diarrhea in 242 children ages 6 months to 5 years were analyzed as 1 group. Children were randomized to receive either an individualized homeopathic medicine or placebo to be taken as a single dose after each unformed stool for 5 days. Parents recorded daily stools on diary cards, and health workers made home visits daily to monitor children. The duration of diarrhea was defined as the time until there were less than 3 unformed stools per day for 2 consecutive days. A metaanalysis of the effect-size difference of the three studies was also conducted. RESULTS: Combined analysis shows a duration of diarrhea of 3.3 days in the homeopathy group compared with 4.1 in the placebo group (P = 0.008). The metaanalysis shows a consistent effect-size difference of approximately 0.66 day (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.

I hope that ill-informed people will STOP saying that there is no good research testing homeopathic medicines.

By the way, the 1st trial (which was published in the famed journal, PEDIATRICS) showed that the best results were in children who had a confirmed infection based on stool lab analysis.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Some real medicine from real science -- based on research done at Oxford University in the '40s and '50s researchers invented the Oral Rehydration Solution.

This was tested in the field in the '60s and '70s and proved to work.

See: http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/O_0045.htm

for a bit of history.

This IS one of the great contributions to public health, and because of my own background in public health, I appreciate it. However, did you know that there have been three randomized double-blind clinical trials published in peer-review journals that have used individually prescribed homeopathic medicines that improved upon the results of ORT?

Here's the reference to a meta-analysis of these three studies. Although the lead research was the same MD, the actual prescribers for each of the three trials were different homeopaths.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This meta-analysis was published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.

Its abstract:
Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jiménez-Pérez M, Crothers D.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a positive treatment effect of individualized homeopathic treatment for acute childhood diarrhea, but sample sizes were small and results were just at or near the level of statistical significance. Because all three studies followed the same basic study design, the combined data from these three studies were analyzed to obtain greater statistical power. METHODS: Three double blind clinical trials of diarrhea in 242 children ages 6 months to 5 years were analyzed as 1 group. Children were randomized to receive either an individualized homeopathic medicine or placebo to be taken as a single dose after each unformed stool for 5 days. Parents recorded daily stools on diary cards, and health workers made home visits daily to monitor children. The duration of diarrhea was defined as the time until there were less than 3 unformed stools per day for 2 consecutive days. A metaanalysis of the effect-size difference of the three studies was also conducted. RESULTS: Combined analysis shows a duration of diarrhea of 3.3 days in the homeopathy group compared with 4.1 in the placebo group (P = 0.008). The metaanalysis shows a consistent effect-size difference of approximately 0.66 day (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.

I hope that ill-informed people will STOP saying that there is no good research testing homeopathic medicines.

By the way, the 1st trial (which was published in the famed journal, PEDIATRICS) showed that the best results were in children who had a confirmed infection based on stool lab analysis.

First of all it’s in Pediatr Infect Dis J. not PEDIATRICS
Pediatric Inf Dis J. : Impact factor 1.819
Pediatrics : Impact factor 2.710

BTW the article can be found here you might want to show it so we can all see what we are discussing.


But you are right, indeed most of the research in it is based on data from Nicaragua, from previously published data. It has been looked at quite extensively…

Just click on the other links to see the discussion…
Final death blow can be found in Pediatrics: Sampson W, London W. Pediatrics. 1995 Nov;96(5 Pt 1):961-4
Also see this

A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua [7]. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05). However, critics [8] pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5. This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated). Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes.

And : The Nepal trial was not significant p=0.06 as you may have read in the paper you suggested

Maybe also have a look at this list that discusses this subject of childhood diarrhea

Just a few questions right of the bat…

1) Why do you think it is relevant or a good study?
2) What conclusion would you attribute to the fact that on day 3 there were less then 2 unformed stools but on the days before day 3 and after day 3 there was no significant difference?
3) What do you think has a better effect ORS or a homeopathic drug (yet undefined, since it changed according to the prescriber)

SYL

 

[Mojo]

As for all of Dr. Gully's patients dying...yeah...in old age. Darwin living over 30 years after his 1st visit to his homeopath.

But we have no way of knowing whether the homoeopathic treatment they received prolonged their lives, shortened them, or had no effect at all. It's just a series of uncontrolled anecdotes.

And, BTW, do you have any evidence to support your claim that all of Gully's patients died in old age?

 

[fls]

This IS one of the great contributions to public health, and because of my own background in public health, I appreciate it. However, did you know that there have been three randomized double-blind clinical trials published in peer-review journals that have used individually prescribed homeopathic medicines that improved upon the results of ORT?

Correction. Two of the studies you reference did not show a significant difference in the outcome measure and one of them did.

Someone with the same name as the lead researcher for two of the studies in the metanalysis and of the metanalysis also performed this study.

I hope that ill-informed people will STOP saying that there is no good research testing homeopathic medicines.

The point is not that there is no good research testing homeopathic medicines. It is that the results of the good research do not show an effect that is different from chance and wishful thinking.

By the way, the 1st trial (which was published in the famed journal, PEDIATRICS) showed that the best results were in children who had a confirmed infection based on stool lab analysis.

Yes. Data dredging almost always produces something for the effort. That the violation of the assumptions of statistical significance testing makes the drawing of any conclusions invalid is conveniently forgotten - i.e. chance and wishful thinking.

Linda

 

[Mojo]

Someone with the same name as the lead researcher for two of the studies in the metanalysis and of the metanalysis also performed this study.

OBJECTIVE: A homeopathic combination medicine, if effective, could be used by health personnel on a widespread basis.

An, er, interesting stated objective for a trial of a therapy.

 

[Mojo]

Sadly, I've grown tired of you, primarily due to your intellectual dishonesty.

...

I take great pleasure to telling you a historical fact. Our greatly beloved Charles Darwin not only sought care from a highly respected homeopathic physician, Darwin could not have completed his seminal work, Origin of Species, in 1859, if he didn't receive this homeopathic care 10 year prior to its publication.

Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...

From 1837 onwards Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, trembling, and other symptoms. In 1847, Darwin's illness worsened. He was again experiencing frequent episodes of vomiting and weakness, but he now was also experiencing fainting spells and seeing spots in front of his eyes. Darwin wrote that he was so sick that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three.” He was so ill that he wasn’t even able to attend his father’s funeral when he died on November 13, 1848.

In March 1849, an old HMS Beagle shipmate told him about a different type of medical treatment provided by James Manby Gully, MD (1808-1883), and his cousin told Darwin that two friends had benefited greatly from Gully’s care. Darwin decided to go and to take the entire family (his wife Emma and their seven children) (Keynes, 2002). Dr. Gully and his health spa were situated in Malvern (just southwest of Birmingham), which is around 125 miles from the Darwin’s home.

Dr. Gully was a medical graduate of the University of Edinburgh, and he was an unyielding opponent of the use of drugs of that time and age. His medical practice did not simply provide hydrotherapy or dietary advice; he also prescribed homeopathic medicines and recommended medical clairvoyant readings. After being at Dr. Gully’s spa for just nine days, Darwin laments that Gully had prescribed homeopathic medicine to him, “I grieve to say that Dr. Gully gives me homeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.”

And even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, “I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated” (Burkhardt, 1996, 107). After being there just eight days Darwin a skin eruption broken out all over his legs, and he was actually pleased to experience this problem because he had previously observed that his physical and mental health improved noticeably after having skin eruptions.

He went a month without vomiting, a very rare experience for him, and even gained some weight. One day he surprised himself by being able to walk seven miles. He wrote to a friend, “I am turning into a mere walking & eating machine” (Quammen, 2006, 112)

And after just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all. After spending 16 weeks there, he felt like a new man, and by June he was able to go home to resume his important work (Grosvenor, 2004). Darwin actually writes that he is “of almost perfect health” (Burkhardt, 1996, 108).

Sadly for you, it appears that the therapy that Darwin thought responsible for his improvement was hydrotherapy, not homoeopathy. Gully seems to have been regarded primarily as a hydrotherapist by everyone apart from homoeopaths.

You say that "even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, 'I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated'". Is there any indication that he ascribed this improvement to homoeopathy?

In fact, far from being convinced of the effectiveness of homoeopathy by 1849 as you claim, on 4th September 1850 he wrote:

You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything— when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep—an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist! & the girl recovered.—

 

[Mojo]

It would also appear that Gully himself may not have regarded homoeopathy as a primary mode of treatment, but rather as an adjunct to his use of hydrotherapy, and used as a palliative or suppressive treatment rather than to treat the underlying condition. A footnote to one of the letters quoted above says:

Gully was strongly against the administration of medical drugs for chronic disorders (Gully 1846, p. 513 n.) and cautious in his use of homoeopathic remedies: ‘although I might be induced to try to subdue a passing but troublesome symptom, I could not trust to remove the essential nature of a chronic malady by homœopathic means’ (Gully 1846, p. 83 n.).

 

[Mashuna]

Sadly for you, it appears that the therapy that Darwin thought responsible for his improvement was hydrotherapy, not homoeopathy. Gully seems to have been regarded primarily as a hydrotherapist by everyone apart from homoeopaths.

You say that "even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, 'I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated'". Is there any indication that he ascribed this improvement to homoeopathy?

In fact, far from being convinced of the effectiveness of homoeopathy by 1849 as you claim, on 4th September 1850 he wrote:

So the best example for homeopathy in the thread so far is someone who lived almost 200 years ago and wasn't actually a homeopath? Sounds par for the course.

 

[manioberoi]

So the best example for homeopathy in the thread so far is someone who lived almost 200 years ago and wasn't actually a homeopath? Sounds par for the course.

Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):115-20. Epub 2006 Nov 29.
Effect of homeopathic treatment of 60 Japanese patients with chronic skin disease.
.Itamura R.
Department of Dermatology, Obitsu Sankei Hospital, 1-4 Namikinishi-machi, Kawagoe-city, Saitama-ken 350-0025, Japan.
BACKGROUND:
Many individuals who appear to suffer from incurable chronic skin disease use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Homeopathy has recently increased in popularity among patients with skin disease. The effects of homeopathic treatment have yet to be fully investigated in patients for whom conventional dermatological treatment is not sufficiently effective.
OBJECTIVES: To describe patient-reported and clinically observed effects of individualized homeopathic treatment of chronic skin disease.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The effectiveness of individualized homeopathic treatment was measured using the patients' own assessments of seven elements (overall impression, improvement of skin condition, reduction of itchiness, reduction of sleep disturbance, satisfaction in daily life, fulfillment at work and satisfaction in human relations) using a nine-point scale similar to the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital Outcome Scale (GHHOS). Sixty patients with chronic skin disease were included in the study: atopic dermatitis (AD) (n=25), eczema other than AD (n=20), severe acne (n=6), chronic urticaria (n=6), psoriasis vulgaris (n=2) and alopecia universalis (n=1). These patients received individualized homeopathic treatments in addition to conventional dermatological treatments for a period of from 3 months to 2 years 7 months.
RESULTS: Six patients reported a score of 4 (complete recovery), 23 patients a score of 3 (75% improvement), 24 patients a score of 2 (50% improvement) and 7 patients a score of 1 (25% improvement). A total of 88.3% of patients reported over 50% improvement. Around one-half the patients with AD and eczema reported greater satisfaction in daily life, greater fulfillment at work and greater satisfaction in human relations. CONCLUSIONS: The psychological, physical and psychosomatic symptoms and effects of chronic skin diseases are inextricable. Individualized homeopathic treatment can provoke a good response in patients with chronic skin disease; therefore, the holistic approach used in homeopathy may be a useful strategy alongside conventional treatment.

 

[Mojo]

How many patients were in the control group?

 

[fls]

Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):115-20. Epub 2006 Nov 29.
Effect of homeopathic treatment of 60 Japanese patients with chronic skin disease.
.Itamura R.
Department of Dermatology, Obitsu Sankei Hospital, 1-4 Namikinishi-machi, Kawagoe-city, Saitama-ken 350-0025, Japan.
BACKGROUND:
Many individuals who appear to suffer from incurable chronic skin disease use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Homeopathy has recently increased in popularity among patients with skin disease. The effects of homeopathic treatment have yet to be fully investigated in patients for whom conventional dermatological treatment is not sufficiently effective.
OBJECTIVES: To describe patient-reported and clinically observed effects of individualized homeopathic treatment of chronic skin disease.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The effectiveness of individualized homeopathic treatment was measured using the patients' own assessments of seven elements (overall impression, improvement of skin condition, reduction of itchiness, reduction of sleep disturbance, satisfaction in daily life, fulfillment at work and satisfaction in human relations) using a nine-point scale similar to the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital Outcome Scale (GHHOS). Sixty patients with chronic skin disease were included in the study: atopic dermatitis (AD) (n=25), eczema other than AD (n=20), severe acne (n=6), chronic urticaria (n=6), psoriasis vulgaris (n=2) and alopecia universalis (n=1). These patients received individualized homeopathic treatments in addition to conventional dermatological treatments for a period of from 3 months to 2 years 7 months.
RESULTS: Six patients reported a score of 4 (complete recovery), 23 patients a score of 3 (75% improvement), 24 patients a score of 2 (50% improvement) and 7 patients a score of 1 (25% improvement). A total of 88.3% of patients reported over 50% improvement. Around one-half the patients with AD and eczema reported greater satisfaction in daily life, greater fulfillment at work and greater satisfaction in human relations.

Yes. Exactly what you'd expect to see in the absence of any effect from homeopathy.

I'm not sure what your point was, new person. We are already aware that much of the homeopathic literature consists of incredibly poorly-designed studies, such as this.

Linda

 

[JJM]

Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):115-20. Epub 2006 Nov 29.
Effect of homeopathic treatment of 60 Japanese patients with chronic skin disease.
{snip} PATIENTS AND METHODS: The effectiveness of individualized homeopathic treatment was measured using the patients' own assessments of seven elements {snip} Sixty patients with chronic skin disease were included in the study {snip} These patients received individualized homeopathic treatments in addition to conventional dermatological treatments
{snip}[Emphasis added]

This is typical homeopathic nonsense published in a magazine that is not fit to line my parrot's birdcage. Note the feeble evaluation protocol. The sample size renders this little better than testimonial. There is no blinding, and no placebo control group. Finally, they credit homeopathy despite the fact their customers also had conventional treatments (a common homeopathic failing).

Thanks, manioberoi, I had a good laugh.

 

[manioberoi]

This is typical homeopathic nonsense published in a magazine that is not fit to line my parrot's birdcage. Note the feeble evaluation protocol. The sample size renders this little better than testimonial. There is no blinding, and no placebo control group. Finally, they credit homeopathy despite the fact their customers also had conventional treatments (a common homeopathic failing).

Thanks, manioberoi, I had a good laugh.

“Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jan-Mar;8(1):98-102.
Inhibition of chemically induced carcinogenesis by drugs used in homeopathic medicine.
Kumar KH, Sunila ES, Kuttan G, Preethi KC, Venugopal CN, Kuttan R.
Amala Cancer Research Centre, Amala Nagar, Thrissur, Kerala State, India. 680555. amalaresearch@rediffmail.com.
Homeopathy is considered as one modality for cancer therapy. However, there are only very few clinical reports on the activity of the drugs, as well as in experimental animals. Presently we have evaluated the inhibitory effects of potentized homeopathic preparations against N'-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) induced hepatocellular carcinoma in rats as well as 3-methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas in mice. We have used Ruta, Hydrastis, Lycopodium and Thuja, which are commonly employed in homeopathy for treating cancer. Administration of NDEA in rats resulted in tumor induction in the liver and elevated marker enzymes such as gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, glutamate pyruvate transaminase, glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase and alkaline phosphatase in the serum and in liver. Concomitant administration of homeopathic drugs retarded the tumor growth and significantly reduced the elevated marker enzymes level as revealed by morphological, biochemical and histopathological evaluation. Out of the four drugs studied, Ruta 200c showed maximum inhibition of liver tumor development. Ruta 200c and phosphorus 1M were found to reduce the incidence of 3-methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas and also increase the life span of mice harboring the tumours. These studies demonstrate that homeopathic drugs, at ultra low doses, may be able to decrease tumor induction by carcinogen administration. At present we do not know the mechanisms of action of these drugs useful against carcinogenesis. “

 

[Mojo]

Here's your next one:

Homeopathy. 2007 Jan;96(1):49-51
Homeopathic treatment for infertility in a prize Nelore bull.
Lobreiro J.

ETA: By the way, spamming the forum is considered a no-no. You might be better advised to post some argument rather than just cutting and pasting from a web page.

 

[Mojo]

And I bet that none of you know about the experiments that Darwin conducted using homeopathic doses.

Can you post any information about these experiments?

And perhaps define what you mean by "homeopathic doses" in this context?