More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Pipirr]

Two proponents of homeopathy, in the same thread? One's cup runneth over.

Welcome to the forums, manioberoi.

 

[manioberoi]

Two proponents of homeopathy, in the same thread? One's cup runneth over.

Welcome to the forums, manioberoi.

Not a proponent of homeopathy but a proponent of better science for better health. I do believe that if cure is achieved without killer side effects, more horrific than the cure sought for, the cause of scientific cure would be advanced and not retarded.

Can anyone prove that homeopathy does not work? I also cannot prove how homeopathy works. However I can demonstrate that homeopathy works about as often as any other system of medicine in most (but not all areas of the field of medicine) MOSTLY WITHOUT THE KILLER SIDE EFFECTS OF MATERIAL DOSAGE DRUGS.

 

[manioberoi]

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

All of the patients had previously been treated with conventional medicine and various psychological interventions but had shown no signs of improvement.

 

[manioberoi]

Here's your next one:

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.

Point conceded. Shall post arguments where required in future.

 

[fls]

Not a proponent of homeopathy but a proponent of better science for better health. I do believe that if cure is achieved without killer side effects, more horrific than the cure sought for, the cause of scientific cure would be advanced and not retarded.

Yes, that is one of the principles of evidence-based medicine.

Can anyone prove that homeopathy does not work?

That our detailed knowledge of physiology and pharmacology excludes the possibility that it can work, and that clinical research does not demonstrate that it works, is reasonable proof that it does not work.

I also cannot prove how homeopathy works. However I can demonstrate that homeopathy works about as often as any other system of medicine in most (but not all areas of the field of medicine) MOSTLY WITHOUT THE KILLER SIDE EFFECTS OF MATERIAL DOSAGE DRUGS.

Published research does not support your assertion.

Linda

 

[fls]

All of the patients had previously been treated with conventional medicine and various psychological interventions but had shown no signs of improvement.

Doesn't matter. Chronic skin conditions are characterized by a highly variable course. One would still expect to see varying levels of improvement with continued conventional treatment. And even without treatment, ten to thirty (or more) percent of patients recover completely, and the majority of the remainder show some recovery. That's even without taking into consideration wishful thinking when making subjective evaluations.

Linda

 

[manioberoi]

Yes, that is one of the principles of evidence-based medicine.



That our detailed knowledge of physiology and pharmacology excludes the possibility that it can work, and that clinical research does not demonstrate that it works, is reasonable proof that it does not work.



Published research does not support your assertion.

Linda

Would you be kind enough to quote 100 published research references that support your assertion that "Published research does not support your assertion."?

 

[manioberoi]

Doesn't matter. Chronic skin conditions are characterized by a highly variable course. One would still expect to see varying levels of improvement with continued conventional treatment. And even without treatment, ten to thirty (or more) percent of patients recover completely, and the majority of the remainder show some recovery. That's even without taking into consideration wishful thinking when making subjective evaluations.

Linda

Varying levels conceded. But we are talking of ZERO LEVELS in all 17 cases with prolonged conventional treatment - FOLLOWED BY over 50 percent improvement in 6 categories (for 40 to 85 percent of 17 cases) over 6 to 31 months with homeopathic treatment (some conventional teatment also given which had earlier failed to show any result.

 

[Mojo]

Would you be kind enough to quote 100 published research references that support your assertion that "Published research does not support your assertion."?

Don't try to reverse the burden of proof like that: we might think you're Rodney.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Bad Quoting

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.

Please note that I did not say most of the above. I ownly said the part up to: "See: http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/O_0045.htm
for a bit of history."

For the part I did not say, I have a one word response: REPLICATION

 

[manioberoi]

Don't try to reverse the burden of proof like that: we might think you're Rodney.

A study with CONTROLS at Georgetown University Medical Center found homeopathic Sabal serrulata to have biologic effect significantly stronger to controls AND specific to human prostate cancer.

"Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):362-72.
Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models.
MacLaughlin BW, Gutsmuths B, Pretner E, Jonas WB, Ives J, Kulawardane DV, Amri H.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
Our study clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth. This biologic effect was
(i)significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and
(ii)specific to human prostate cancer.

PMID: 17101766 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

So now if you wish to disprove "that homeopathy works about as often as any other system of medicine in most (but not all areas of the field of medicine) MOSTLY WITHOUT THE KILLER SIDE EFFECTS OF MATERIAL DOSAGE DRUGS." you would have to prove that homeopathy does not work - as per the universally accepted laws of burden of proof. I do not say that homeopathy always works. Let he who says that homeopathy never works prove it.

 

[Mojo]

So now if you wish to disprove "that homeopathy works about as often as any other system of medicine in most (but not all areas of the field of medicine) MOSTLY WITHOUT THE KILLER SIDE EFFECTS OF MATERIAL DOSAGE DRUGS." you would have to prove that homeopathy does not work - as per the universally accepted laws of burden of proof. I do not say that homeopathy always works. Let he who says that homeopathy never works prove it.

You're still trying to reverse the burden of proof: your claim was "However I can demonstrate that homeopathy works about as often as any other system of medicine in most (but not all areas of the field of medicine) MOSTLY WITHOUT THE KILLER SIDE EFFECTS OF MATERIAL DOSAGE DRUGS." You are now asking others to prove a negative.

 

[JJM]

Would you be kind enough to quote 100 published research references that support your assertion that "Published research does not support your assertion."?

Well, some reviews: http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/htsearch

One of the articles cited in the above reference concludes:

Much of the argument about homeopathy ends up being about trivial differences of little or no clinical relevance. Until large and well conducted randomised trials tell us differently, the conclusion is that homeopathy does not work, and its use instead of remedies of proven effectiveness is not a matter of trivial implication. Members of the public are relieved of much money each year by homeopaths. There's little evidence they are relieved of any suffering.

 

[Pipirr]

A study with CONTROLS at Georgetown University Medical Center found homeopathic Sabal serrulata to have biologic effect significantly stronger to controls AND specific to human prostate cancer.

"Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):362-72.
Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models.
MacLaughlin BW, Gutsmuths B, Pretner E, Jonas WB, Ives J, Kulawardane DV, Amri H.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
Our study clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth. This biologic effect was
(i)significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and
(ii)specific to human prostate cancer.

PMID: 17101766 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-snip-

Just out of interest, is that sufficient evidence for you personally to use that homeopathic treatment for prostate cancer?

If not, what more evidence would you require?

 

[manioberoi]

You're still trying to reverse the burden of proof: your claim was "However I can demonstrate that homeopathy works about as often as any other system of medicine in most (but not all areas of the field of medicine) MOSTLY WITHOUT THE KILLER SIDE EFFECTS OF MATERIAL DOSAGE DRUGS." You are now asking others to prove a negative.

"our detailed knowledge of physiology and pharmacology excludes the possibility that it can work" flies in the face of Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center study that " clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth. This biologic effect was
(i)significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and
(ii)specific to human prostate cancer." So the burden of proof that homeopathic treatment does not work is indeed on you ( rather Linda) for claiming "our detailed knowledge of physiology and pharmacology excludes the possibility that it can work" because it has been shown that it works - no one has disputed this study.

 

[manioberoi]

Well, some reviews: http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/htsearch

One of the articles cited in the above reference concludes:

The open letter of 23 May 2006 from some of the UK's leading doctors urging NHS trusts to stop using complementary therapies has very broad and sweeping statements that can neither be supported nor refuted since it lacks in specifics.

 

[manioberoi]

Just out of interest, is that sufficient evidence for you personally to use that homeopathic treatment for prostate cancer?

If not, what more evidence would you require?

Of course not! I would be foolish to try Sabal serrulata alone for prostate cancer unless it is of venereal origin with soft core. Sabal serrulata helps in prostate problems. For cancer of the prostate individualization would lead to teatment with Conium maculatum and other remedies found to be more effective. The cured cases are published, however this forum refuses to accept homeopathic results (individualized) on account of CONTROLS problem!!! I would NOT take chemotherapy till such time as it is proved to be more effective ie in the region of 20 percent cure rate. I would at the present state of the art prefer homeopathy with the 15 to 30 percent cure rate at stages not too advanced, achieved by master homeopaths like Dr AU Ramakrishnan or Dr SK Banerjea.

 

[JJM]

manioberoi, you are citing obscure journals. And, I guess you have learned to avoid abstracts with sufficient detail to allow criticism. Keep in mind, that the AltMed literature is exceedingly poor quality. That would be any journal with one (or more) of the words - complementary, alternative, integrative, holistic - in the title; or any journal devoted to a particular AltMed treatment. How about citing papers that are in good medical journals.

Keep in mind that one report of success with one treatment does not prove the effectiveness of homeopathy- it only supports that one preparation (if it can be replicated). Also, we need independent confirmation that a truly homeopathic preparation was used- these people have been caught using actual drugs at times.

 

[manioberoi]

manioberoi, you are citing obscure journals. And, I guess you have learned to avoid abstracts with sufficient detail to allow criticism. Keep in mind, that the AltMed literature is exceedingly poor quality. That would be any journal with one (or more) of the words - complementary, alternative, integrative, holistic - in the title; or any journal devoted to a particular AltMed treatment. How about citing papers that are in good medical journals.

Keep in mind that one report of success with one treatment does not prove the effectiveness of homeopathy- it only supports that one preparation (if it can be replicated). Also, we need independent confirmation that a truly homeopathic preparation was used- these people have been caught using actual drugs at times.

Is the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA an obscure organisation? Are you insinuating that the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA have not been using actual drugs at times? Is it not possible that their paper was not accepted for publication in the journals which you find NOT obscure on account of bias against homeopathy perhaps? Why blame the journal or try to tarnish its image because you do not like what they publish? I do not say that any journal is obscure to suit my convenience. Kindly accept that all journals have a good standing so long as they have not been proven to be fraudulent or lax in their duties.

 

[JJM]

Is the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA an obscure organisation? {snip}

When you ask a rhetorical question you should know the answer. The (formerly respected) Georgetown U Med School has been deeply infiltrated by quacks: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/not_so_stealthily_sneaking_cam_into_the_1.php
Today, it is decending into scientific obscurity.

At this point, you have had plenty of time to provide high-quality (human) clinical data, and I can only conclude you don't have it (i.e., it doesn't exist) for even one homeopathic treatment.