Homeopathy is everywhere!

[BTox]

My position has been made repeatedly clear. I am trying to get you to see the need for further large scale FDA-type if not FDA mandated studies of these claims. I base this demand on what studies I can find out there.

You've got a hard sell. All I see is barely statistically significant results in poorly designed and conducted studies, and no difference from placebo in better-quality clinical trials. My only demand is that FDA hold homeopathy to the same standard as ethical drugs, and require the manufacturers to put up sound clinical data or fold up shop once and for all. But since we and they know the result of that scenario, it's not going to happen voluntarily.

 

[SteveGrenard]

BT: But since we and they know the result of that scenario, it's not going to happen voluntarily.

......it could be voluntarily. As I have demonstrated there are researchers who are independent and not connected to the industry doing studies of homeopathy although I still feel they must have co-investigators who are homeopaths with connections to insure that the product is pepared as claimed. If the industry is not held repsonsible for funding this by the FDA and wont do it voluntarily, then funding may become or probably already is a problem. There must be somebody out there with deep enough pockets to want to either prove or debunk this once and for all. The researchers doing this now apparently can only afford 5 mice, or 10 or maybe 30 or 40 or 8 gunea pigs or 6 rats. Not that animal studies require huge numbers as Ed erroneously believes/implies , but Phase II and III trials do require larger numbers of subjects.

 

[Ed]

Oh, we heard from those skeptics who say there is no reason for those. Well since according to those same people they have not ocurred as yet, I am sorry, but there is a need for them.

I think that you are referring to me here. My point was that, given the range of research on Homeo, the addition of FDA mandated testing would be superfluous for any thinking individual to come to a conclusion. I certainly do support such testing if for no other reason to get this garbage off of the shelves


If you or a loved one were dying of liver cancer and had six months (if that) and Memorial Sloan Kettering and every top cancer specialist in the world have written you off, would you try homeopathy? Or if the big cancer centers consider it might be worth a shot to spend a few hundred grand trying to save you, would you also consider spending an extra twenty dollars trying some homeopathic water concomittanly?

By the same token might not one pray to Allah, Jebus, the Blessed Virgin, Allah? Might not one go to a Voodoo priest or a witch? What about faith healers or the frauds in the Philippines? Do we go to JE and get advice from beyond, or better yet, Sylvia? How do you, Steve, distingush between these and Homeopathy? Why would you do one and not the other?

Now, I'll share a dirty little secret. I'd do Ann Coulter and I would not rule out all of the above, and more, if a loved one were in extremis. But, that is desperation talking, not rational thought and is not the point of this discussion.

Sweat or torture results, its the same vocabularly. See it repeatedly used by skeptics running out of more plasuible explanations but fine, think what you want.

Whoa. I think that you miss the point. No further explination is necessary, "sweating" the data is what proponents do when they run out of arguments.

Until we have the defining studies proving yes or no, nobody cares.

Right. And my argument is that these have been done sans the imprimator of the FDA.




Reply: I think this is a riot. This is exactly what all of you do here in your refutation act. If I do it, I guess I learned the technique right here.



Reply: Very very silly questions. My position has been made repeatedly clear. I am trying to get you to see the need for further large scale FDA-type if not FDA mandated studies of these claims. I base this demand on what studies I can find out there. If you want to appeal to authority, I am guilty of that as well by offering papers from non-homeopathic institutions by non-homeopathic authors. However, I do not even understand why this is so important. I do not expect non-surgeons to do surgical research, I don't expect rheumatolgists to publish on pulmonary diseases and don't expect neurologists to do cardiology research on the side.

If somebody here decides to organize yet another petition to the FDA, I would hope it would mirror that of Kurtz, Randi et al of a few years ago and demand these studies, not wholesale refutation.
Did you miss that post? No? Yes.. or was it selectively bypassed by the cynics and closed minded skeptics around here.?



Reply: Yup, and you got the answer. If you know what's inside my head more than I do, then its you who are deluding yourself. Or maybe you're telepathic? [/B]

 

[Rolfe]

This is similar to going back ten years and dredging out the work of Fleischmann and Pons and their followers, and saying, "Oh, look at all that significant data suggesting that cold fusion occurs. This ought to be studied further by big, government funded laboratories."

Then when the huge body of work which failed to replicate this effect is produced, and the review articles which reveal the methodological and statistical flaws in the original work are cited, and the work of Huizenga in summarising the eventual state of the argument is brought into the discussion, just announcing that this is all biassed propaganda of sceptics, and going back to dementing on about F&P's "results".

If Steve feels so strongly about this, maybe he needs to go talk to the FDA. But as a single voice arguing repetitiously from this untenable position on a thread originally started from a different point of view entirely, I don't see what good he thinks he might achieve.

Rolfe.

 

[Ed]

BT: But since we and they know the result of that scenario, it's not going to happen voluntarily.

......it could be voluntarily. As I have demonstrated there are researchers who are independent and not connected to the industry doing studies of homeopathy although I still feel they must have co-investigators who are homeopaths with connections to insure that the product is pepared as claimed. If the industry is not held repsonsible for funding this by the FDA and wont do it voluntarily, then funding may become or probably already is a problem. There must be somebody out there with deep enough pockets to want to either prove or debunk this once and for all. The researchers doing this now apparently can only afford 5 mice, or 10 or maybe 30 or 40 or 8 gunea pigs or 6 rats.

I am beginning to think that lousey experiments in this area are part of the same syndrome of lousey experiments in other paranormal fields. After all, a series of well designed experiments would answer the question, bad experiments beg the question and give rise to further research. Consider this: you can buy 200 mice Here for about $700. A 10 mouse study might cost about $35 for the critters. What do you say about "research" that is budgeted at $100? Shall we apply a sniff test? We are looking at High School Science Fair projects here. "Apparently can only afford" please. De_Bunk, working out of his refrigerator carton could afford more.

Not that animal studies require huge numbers as Ed erroneously believes/implies , but Phase II and III trials do require larger numbers of subjects.

Steve, don't play the stats game with me. My point is that if I were designing research, the last flaw that I would allow is the possibility of critisism because I only spent $70 on lab animals[/QUOTE

 

[AlienX]

Personally I think the only real solution is to treat all "alternative" medicines exactly the same as all other "standard" medicines.

This is where the main problem lies - it's totally unregulated (even if it doesn't have any effect at all). Currently Homeopaths say it works and does no harm and that's it. In my mind like all other medicines they should have to prove that it does no harm in the least and then that it does what it says...

With the levels were talking here imagaine how even slight contamination anywhere in the prep could be potentially catestrophic. I for one will not stand to just be told that this stuff is harmless.

If it is has a medical use then it should be governed by exactly the same laws.. why should "normal" remedies be at such a disadvantage in the market place. Currently drugs take years to come to the matrket place due to the stringent testing procedures.

The only way out is to force all Homeopathic solutions to be treated the same as any other drug.

Do I think they work .. nope but then it puts the ball in the Homeopaths court with them then having to prove each solution is safe and does what it says it does - like all the pharmacutical companies have to! ;-)

In my book if Homeopathic solutions can have a +ve effect upon health then surely the reverse is true also! :-|.

AX

 

[thaiboxerken]

There must be somebody out there with deep enough pockets to want to either prove or debunk this once and for all.

It's only been debunked countless times, what more do you need? No amount of debunking will sway the minds of the believers.

 

[Rolfe]

The whole thing is completely political.

Last night I got into a discussion about regulated professionals who espouse magical methods - not mentioning homoeopathy specifically, but the general principles of going to university for x years and learning all about biochemistry and physiology and pharmacology and therapeutics and cell membranes and drug receptor sites and all that really pretty interesting but on the other hand quite hard stuff, then coming out and, while still representing oneself as a qualified professional, promoting magical concepts such as energy meridiens.

Official pronouncement was that professionals who traded on their professional qualifications were obliged to hold to the principles of evidence-based medicine, and would certainly face disciplinary action if they were reported for promoting unscientific therapies. There was a lot of sotto voce muttering along the lines of "what about the homoeopaths then?", but that was ignored. Nobody shows any sign of reporting them, and their training courses, while not allowable for continuing education credits, still get advertised in professional publications.

The homoeopaths are so well organised and so well established, with support from some very high places, that it's impossible politically to treat their methods with the same rigour everything else gets treated to. They're tolerated because it's too big a fight to throw them out, what with the Faculty of Homoeopaths being established by Act of Parliament, and having the backing of the Queen and Prince Charles (who is quite honestly barking mad). Nearly as mad as Cherie Blair with her acupuncture earrings, come to think of it.

It would need a body of public opinion equal to or greater than that which embraces magical medicine to start clamouring for better regulation before anything has a hope of getting done. Public perception of the "kind", "forgiving", "natural" remedy has been so carefully fostered and promoted that that's not so likely any time soon. Failing that, the professions are just going to live with the situation and try to ignore it.

These arguments apply both to qualified professionals being held accountable for the rationality of the medicine they practise, and remedies on sale being held to the same requirements to show efficacy and safety as regular medicine. Nobody's going to do it until public perception changes.

And by the way, if I had cancer there's no way I'd try homoeopathy, or acupuncture or reiki healing or therapeutic touch or radionics or.... Need I go on? The world is full of quack medicines which, however sincere their originators may or may not have been, are now simply being milked for the maximum profit by deluded or cynical practitioners who prey on the desperate and the gullible. These people are very good indeed at PR and marketing and working the system, and will no doubt continue to do so, but rational observers ought to be able to see past this and notice that the Emperor is stark naked.

Rolfe.

 

[AlienX]

All it will take is a few people who believe in this rubbish believing they have been harmed by it and starting legal acton.
If they are foolish enough to totally believe it has an effect then surely they can believe the effect has been -ve.

Currently as far as i'm aware there is no regulation age wise upon Homeopathic solutions use, so with children being able to use these solutions then it's a brave politician who assumes there is no risk without definative proof. (if you want to get you way with anything think of how it effects children and work from there)

Unfortunately for homeopaths to show no potential risk would also show that these solutions have no effect . How do you monitor and moderate homeopathic solutions - how do you know they have been prepared correctly etc. Currently all batches of drugs are analysed and kept on record (by law they have to do this) for any potential future claims. Without such records they are wide open to law suits.

The lack of proof and failure to be able to prove the solution was prepared correctly could lead to some very large legal costs for homeopaths.

As for famous people being believers - well lets be blunt how many of them are famous chemists/pharma chemists etc. One or two pretty respected chemists have destroyed their credibility when they have demonstrated laughable methodology. Do i think they should be totally discredited - no as we all make mistakes - just these people realise that mistakes of this magnitude are never forgiven hence they continue to defend their original errors.

Steve so far has given a few nice links that demonstrate exactly what not to do when designing sound methodology.

With all their technical resorce and money I find it hard to believe that none of the large pharma companies have no Homeopathic remedies.. very odd don't you think for companies which randomly try hundreds of thousands of various chemicals for their potential in healing to not investigate homeopathy..!

Being realistic they probably have as they try anything and everything anyway - obviousy it didn't work or it would have been patented by one of them at some point.

Thus the lack of any homeopathic remedies from any of the major pharma companies is a very good indication that Homeopathy does not work. QED.

AX

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I did tell you about the story I heard last night that a company tried to get a homoeopathic nosode through the regular veterinary medicines legislation. It got nowhere, of course. This is the problem even with apparently rational herbal remedies. The drug companies would be all over those things if they thought they could demonstrate enough effect to get a regular drug licence. In fact they do try, quite often I think, but very few of these attempts has succeeded (herbs, I mean). Which makes me a bit dubious about the herbalists "why shouldn't the plant have an active principle?"

Then again, as you say, if there is an active principle then there is also potential for toxicity. Which is why these things absolutely ought to be tested. It's just that so long ago some politician was persuaded to take the line that homoeopathy was so self-evidently harmless that it wouldn't hurt to exempt it. It seemed an easier thing to do than to go against the powerful and vocal believers. And now they've got their knees well and truly under the table, and are allowed to sell the stuff anyway, without the tests.

However, don't hold your breath waiting for the injured dupes to sue. One of the features of the homoeopathic client is belief. They are true believers, and they'll imagine an improvement rather than admit they might have been wrong. Or they'll insist on their deathbeds that they'd never have lasted this long without the great homoeopathy. The other segment is the semi-sceptical "why not give it a try?" punter. These people may realise nothing is happening, but they may not be that surprised. They may be a bit embarrassed at falling for such nonsense, and unkeen to sue. Add that to the fact that the remedies as such really are harmless, and there's not much of a market for legal claims. People who really feel strongly that they have been quacked, and decide to take matters further, don't seem very thick on the ground.

Then again, would they win? The law is a chancy thing. You get a judge who is himself a believer, and you're screwed. Even aside from that, you get all the arguments Steve has marshalled, put before a judge with no scientific training. Look at all these significant trials! Of course it's medicine. Doctors are allowed to do it. And there's no doctor of any persuasion who'll give a guarantee that his treatment will be successful every time, so why shouldn't even homoeopathy have the odd failure? No, I wouldn't risk my money on bringing such an action.

This will only change is there is a change in the public attitude. And that is so often conditioned by the media, which are incredibly tolerant towards alternative medicine. Even the famous Horizon programme had me grinding my teeth. Significantly more proponents than sceptics, and not only that, the proponents were allowed to present the most implausible anecdotal claims without any challenge. No sign of any patient who hadn't been helped, and the sceptics were all pure academics simply putting the theoretical arguments (and rather quickly at that). Where were the rational doctors and vets who would have said what nonsense 99% of the professionals think it is? Where were the patients who weren't better?

The whole tone of the programme was one of veiled mysticism, with the audience being allowed to think there was a real effect that the sceptics simply couldn't explain, rather than pointing out that the alleged effect was delusional. OK, they couldn't replicate the Ennis experiment, but that only showed that whatever the mechanism of action might be, it didn't seem to be that. They truly didn't get even close to proving or declaring that "Homoeopathy is wrong", as one poster likes to put in his sig file. And that's our favourite programme.

Where are the hard-hitting exposes of this multi-million-pound health fraud? Gosh, it's easier to make another woolly, new-agey, "maybe there's something in it" programme. And that way you don't upset so many people either. In this climate, I don't think we'll see sanity any time soon.

Rolfe.

 

[BTox]

With all their technical resorce and money I find it hard to believe that none of the large pharma companies have no Homeopathic remedies.. very odd don't you think for companies which randomly try hundreds of thousands of various chemicals for their potential in healing to not investigate homeopathy..!

Being realistic they probably have as they try anything and everything anyway - obviousy it didn't work or it would have been patented by one of them at some point.

Thus the lack of any homeopathic remedies from any of the major pharma companies is a very good indication that Homeopathy does not work. QED.

AX

I can tell you that if there was anything to homeopathy, my company would be selling such products. We don't - anywhere in the world - and we sell alot of products in countries where homeopathy is accepted (e.g. India).